The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Speaker [Mr Mitchel McLaughlin] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes' silence.

Assembly Business

Public Petition: Cairn Wood Forest Park

Mr Speaker: Mr Chris Lyttle has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22.  The Member will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject.

Chris Lyttle: I am very grateful for the opportunity to present the petition, which has been signed by over 2,500 people who are concerned with the planned sale of Cairn Wood forest.
Many people are involved in the campaign to save Cairn Wood forest, and I thank those who have travelled to the Assembly for the presentation of the petition.  From speaking to them, it is clear that they strongly believe that, if Cairn Wood were sold to a private bidder, we would lose a valuable public asset and a haven that is enjoyed by many people from my constituency of East Belfast and from the constituencies of North Down and Strangford and beyond.
It is my understanding that Ards and North Down Borough Council was offered the opportunity to purchase the site in 2014 but, sadly, declined, despite calls by my Alliance Party colleagues to consult users and to undertake an economic appraisal to establish viability and potential costs of ownership.  With the council refusing to examine the issue, it appears that Northern Ireland Water proceeded to explore the sale.  That was unknown to councillors until 20 November 2015 when my colleague Alliance councillor Andrew Muir received a phone call from a constituent concerned that Cairn Wood was up for sale on a property website.  Since then, Alliance's Councillor Muir has secured the support of Ards and North Down Borough Council in the campaign to stop the sale, and, last Wednesday, councillors voted in favour of his motion to call on the Minister for Regional Development to keep Cairn Wood forest in public use on the same basis as enjoyed by many people for decades.
I commend Councillor Muir for his work on the campaign and for establishing the petition, which has provided many people with an opportunity to submit their support for saving Cairn Wood.  Debbie Nelson, for instance, said:
"Cairn Wood is a priceless habitat for thousands of birds and animals, one of the very few remaining areas with a population of red squirrels, protected birds of prey species and a huge wealth of flora.  To dispose of it to goodness knows what fate is a disgrace.".
Sally McVeigh in Newtownards said:
"For many years, I have enjoyed walking and running in Cairn Wood.  It is a place to be enjoyed by all.  It is a peaceful, natural environment and should remain that way."
Ivan Greenfield in Bangor asked:
"How can someone decide to sell Cairn Wood without public consent?"
Carolyn Busby in east Belfast said:
"Cairn Wood is a dog-walking paradise."
Recently, the Minister revealed that there is opposition from various groups.  I urge her to listen to those comments and to the thousands of people who have signed the petition, including, it would seem, her constituency and party colleague Jim Shannon MP.  I urge her therefore to give urgent and serious attention to the issue before it is too late.  As Peter Mason from Holywood stated:
"Once sold, never retrieved.  Sell in haste and regret at leisure."
Let us hope that that is not the legacy that the Minister leaves in relation to Cairn Wood.
Mr Lyttle moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister for Regional Development and send a copy to the Committee.

Ministerial Statement

British-Irish Council: Housing

Lord Morrow: At the outset, I should explain that I am reporting on a meeting that I did not attend.  Furthermore, I apologise for the lateness of the statement getting to the Business Office.
In compliance with the requirements of section 52C of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and of Standing Order 18 of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I wish to make the following report on the fourth meeting of the British-Irish Council (BIC) housing work stream, which was held in Edinburgh on 4 November 2015.  The report has been agreed by and is being made on behalf of junior Minister McCann, who accompanied my predecessor, Mervyn Storey, at the meeting.
The British-Irish Council identified housing as a new work stream at its summit in Cardiff in February 2009.  Previous Ministers Margaret Ritchie, Alex Attwood and Nelson McCausland subsequently chaired the first three ministerial housing work stream meetings at the Slieve Donard Hotel in Newcastle, County Down in December 2009; St Mary's College, Belfast in February 2011; and at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Eland House, London in October 2013.
Minister Storey chaired a fourth ministerial meeting, which was hosted by Margaret Burgess MSP on behalf of the Scottish Government in Edinburgh and was attended by representatives from all the jurisdictions.  The UK Government were represented by Peter Schofield, director-general for housing and planning.  The Irish Government were represented by Paudie Coffey TD, Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.  The Scottish Government were represented by Margaret Burgess MSP, Minister for Housing and Welfare.  The Welsh Government were represented by Lesley Griffiths AM, Minister for Communities and Tackling Poverty.  The Jersey Government were represented by Deputy Anne Pryke, Minister for Housing.  The States of Guernsey were represented by Mike Hadley, deputy Minister in the Housing Department.  The Isle of Man Government were represented by the honourable Juan Watterson MHK, Minister for Home Affairs.  Minister Storey co-chaired the meeting alongside junior Minister McCann.  Together, they represented the Northern Ireland Executive.
Ministers welcomed a presentation by John McCord from the Department for Social Development, Northern Ireland, on the report entitled 'Innovative Policy Interventions to Fund Housing Initiatives', which sets out the range of policies that are being adopted across all BIC member Administrations to fund housing provision.  Ministers noted the enormous impact that the global economic downturn has had on the housing market and on the delivery of housing across all BIC Administrations.  Many citizens had seen the value of their homes depreciate, resulting in their facing negative equity.  Governments, too, had faced significantly reduced capital budgets and a rapidly contracted development industry, at the same time facing increased need as a result of demand outstripping supply.  That combination of factors was having an adverse effect on the number of new social and affordable homes being built in the rental and private-rental sectors, as well as on the number of homes coming to the market for private sale.
Governments across the BIC member Administrations have developed policies to address that unprecedented situation.  Ministers discussed the range of innovative solutions developed across member Administrations to address the unique difficulties faced by each and how those are assisting public, voluntary and private housing providers to access new and alternative funding mechanisms.  Discussions included feedback from each Administration on their experience of the effects of their policy interventions and of the financial instruments used to increase the housing supply and improve the standards of the existing housing stock.
Ministers also received a presentation from Alister Steele MBE from Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association on partnership-working, which set out how the sector in Scotland has delivered by developing the relationship between government, the local authority, housing associations and stakeholders to deliver projects on the ground.
Ministers welcomed the updated housing directory, which provides details of good practice across Administrations.
Ministers requested that BIC member Administrations explore the possibility of having a common set of definitions to enable the collection and collation of common data sets to facilitate benchmarking.  Ministers have tasked the group with examining how housing policy can continue to innovate to deliver increased housing supply through alternative funding mechanisms and collaborative relationships, as well as with examining housing policy's role in delivering wider regeneration and social value goals, such as inclusive communities, economic development and social enterprises.  They have asked that the work sector look to provide a full report on the impact and future of innovative policy interventions to increase housing supply and an initial report on the possible role that housing policy can fulfil in delivering wider government regeneration and social value goals.
Ministers agreed that the next ministerial meeting will take place in Jersey, on a date to be confirmed.

Paula Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement.  I also wish him well.  I believe that this is the first time in this mandate that he has come to the House as Minister for Social Development.  I look forward to working with him.
I understand that he was not present at the meeting and that it was attended by his predecessor, but can he tell us why the meeting focused on policy interventions to fund housing initiatives?

Lord Morrow: I thank my colleague for her good wishes.  I deeply appreciate them.
Yes, I did not attend the meeting, but I understand that a number of factors, including the global economic downturn, significantly reduced capital budgets and a rapidly contracted development industry, have had a major negative impact on the housing market, particularly the supply of new homes.  Governments across all BIC member Administrations have been required to develop policies to address the deficit in housing supply across all tenures and to help all housing providers across new and alternative funding streams.  I hope that that adequately answers the Member's question.  However, following this, we will have a look at it, and if there is something that we feel that we need to add, we will write to the Member.

Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.  I also wish the Minister well in taking up his new role.  I look forward to working with him, at least for the rest of this mandate, as the Chair of the Social Development Committee.  Housing is obviously a key element of the work facing all of us in the Assembly, and, as I say, I wish the Minister well in his endeavours.
I appreciate that he was not at the work stream meeting, so I appreciate that he may not be able to give a full response to some of the questions that he is asked.  First, it is important to acknowledge that there has been a very negative backdrop in recent years, because of, as the Minister mentioned, the global economy, the lack of capital funding for social housing provision in particular and a range of other negative factors, not least the quite significant number of people in negative equity.
It is also important to welcome the fact that innovative measures have been taken to address some of the issues, not least the Department's establishment of a task force for mortgage support.
Does the Minister know whether any of the Administrations at the work stream meeting considered the key role of each Government for the provision of enough capital funding to support the social housing market, given the acute housing need across these islands?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Chairman of the Committee for Social Development for his good wishes.  I suspect that I will need them as we go forward.
Yes, my understanding is that those issues were discussed.  Housing, of course, is a big, important issue.  Housing is in my DNA because, at one time, I worked in the private housing sector.  However, since I became a councillor in 1973, housing has been one of the major things to come across my desk.  I share the concerns of Members and the Committee Chairman.  I believe that good housing makes good citizens, and we should strive to get the housing issue as far up the agenda as we possibly can, because I want it to be one of our priorities.
I do not have the full answer in front of me on the issues that the Member raised, but I will certainly get in touch with him following this sitting with a more definitive response.  I agree with him that they are important matters.

Dolores Kelly: I join others in congratulating Lord Morrow on his appointment as Minister for Social Development.  I too look forward to working with him.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss innovative measures to assist Governments and housing providers to find the financial means to build more houses.  Is the Minister in a position to inform us, today or at a later date, about areas of best practice and models that the Department is actively considering?  We know that waiting lists are rising, as are the number of people on the homeless list.

Lord Morrow: Again, I thank the Member for her compliments and look forward to working with her in my capacity as Minister for Social Development.
From the reports that I have gone through, it is significant that a common thread runs through Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in that there is great housing need.  Innovative ways, I understand, have been considered, and perhaps Scotland is marginally ahead of the field in tackling the issue.
The BIC has set its mind to take a closer look at the issue.  I suspect that, come the meeting in Jersey, new thinking and ideas will be brought forward collectively.  Hopefully, that will assist not only here but other regions of the United Kingdom in improving the housing stock and making more houses available.  We have a big waiting list not only in Northern Ireland — that is my primary concern and the primary concern of the Assembly — but in other regions like Scotland and Wales.

Roy Beggs: I too congratulate the Minister on his appointment.  I am sure, however, that he did not relish his first task of reporting on a meeting that occurred two and a half months ago that he did not attend.  That is not the best of starts, but I wish him well.
The report, 'Innovative Policy Interventions to Fund Housing Initiatives', covers an important area, with housing stress being a continuing problem for constituents.  What practical examples that have been developed in Northern Ireland to assist in addressing housing stress were we able to promote?  What practical methods, as opposed to innovative potential methods, have been delivered elsewhere that are being examined for introduction to Northern Ireland to improve the housing situation?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question and for his good wishes.  He raised the matter of the lateness of the report, and, to be truthful, I raised that, too.  I would like to outline to the Member that he must remember that, before we can come to the Assembly with a report or a statement, it has to be cleared by all of the jurisdictions — Scotland, England, Wales, Jersey and Northern Ireland.  It has to do the rounds, and that can take considerable time.  I know that it is a bit bureaucratic, and, if there is way of cutting through that bureaucracy in the time that I am in the Department for Social Development, we will certainly look at that.  It was a time when each jurisdiction shared its ideas, so, hopefully, through the sharing of those ideas, we can have a collaborative way of going forward.  I accept that there will be situations, quite often, that are unique to each jurisdiction and may not be suitable for that.  Therefore, those are the issues that are being probed and looked at as a result of that meeting, and they will come forward in the future.

Stewart Dickson: Lord Morrow, thank you for taking on the role of Social Development Minister at this late stage in the mandate.  You are very welcome to that role.
Minister, in respect of the funding of housing initiatives, can you assure the House that you will not go down the road of your Tory colleagues in the sale of housing association property and that Northern Ireland will be spared that Tory initiative, which must be debated in the current round of your discussions with colleagues, to ensure that housing association stock in Northern Ireland will be maintained in the public sector and allowed to grow in the public sector?

Lord Morrow: I thank Mr Dickson.  I think that I can answer yes to most of your questions.  However, I will make one small correction.  You talk about my "Tory colleagues".  When we look closely at things, the Tories might not be any more colleagues of mine than they are of yours.  Let me be very clear that I disagree on much with the Tories in relation to social issues, not least how they tackle social housing.  You can be assured of that, Mr Dickson.

Sammy Douglas: As a non-Tory colleague, I wish Lord Morrow all the very best in this, his second term of office.
The Minister's statement referred to the future work programme:
"They have asked that the work sector look to provide a full report on the impact and future of innovative policy interventions to increase housing supply".
What is the rationale behind the request for a further report?

Lord Morrow: I thank Mr Douglas for his good wishes.  I suspect that this honeymoon period will not last forever.
[Laughter.]
One day, it might change, but I will enjoy it while it is here.
I ask the Member to remember one thing:  housing supply is not static, and we must strive to ensure that the policies that we introduce and the funding deployed to support them are used to best effect, achieving value for money while delivering decent, sustainable homes.  Many of the policy initiatives introduced throughout the BIC member Administrations are relatively new, and the work sector must evaluate them so that we can continue to learn the lessons from all those schemes in order to continually improve and maximise the delivery of new homes.

Daniel McCrossan: I also wish the Minister well in his new role.  I know that this is his second time there, so it is just a matter of catching up.
Given the high levels of social housing need, which are particularly evident in my constituency of West Tyrone, what is the Minister's assessment of the current demand in comparison with the rest of the UK?  What initiatives are planned to address housing need in rural constituency areas such as my home town of Strabane?  I understand that you may not be in a position to answer directly straight away, considering that you are new to the role.

Lord Morrow: I thank Mr McCrossan for his kind words too.  This gives me an opportunity to wish him well, as he is one of the Members to recently come into the House.  I trust that Mr McCrossan will enjoy his time working for his constituents here in the Assembly.
Where housing need here in Northern Ireland is concerned, when I was first a councillor, way back in the 1970s, if there were a couple of thousand on the housing waiting list, it was deemed to be totally unacceptable.  I am aware that there are now in the region of 40,000 on the housing waiting list, which seems astronomical.  Of those on the list, I suspect that at least 50% are in housing stress.  Therefore, there is a real issue with housing.  Indeed, those in housing stress are finding it very difficult to get housed.  So, for those who do not come into that category, where, oh where will they be in the whole system?  I have a real concern about that.  I feel that that will be a big issue for the Assembly in the new mandate in particular, because this mandate has nearly expired.
Some great things are being done, and new homes are being provided.  I know that there are difficulties, not least as a result of the global downturn, but I assure the Member that, just as he is concerned about Strabane and areas like that, I too have that concern for the whole of Northern Ireland.  Thank you for your question.

Jim Allister: The Minister patently is not culpable, but it is worth noting that it has taken two and a half months to make this statement.  The Minister says that is because there are processes to be gone through, but this statement is in identical terms to the communiqué that has been on the BIC website for two months.  So I do not understand the explanation that it takes processes to approve a statement that is in identical terms to one that has been on the record for two months.  Is the truth of the matter that the BIC is seen as unimportant, given that, on this issue, in nine years there have been only four ministerial meetings?  Is that because the BIC is the poor relation in intergovernmental relations for the House?  Where is the substance in this statement?  It took almost as long to read out who was there as what was done.  Compared with the last communiqué, where is the difference in this?  Where is the substance of the work being done, supposedly, in this work stream?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member for his question.  I am nearly as cross as he is about the whole thing.  He refers to the fact that it has taken two and a half months.  I think that that is not acceptable, and I agree with that.  However, in those two and a half months, there was a Christmas recess too.  I already made it quite clear that it takes time to try to get clearance from all the jurisdictions and it takes more time than I would want.  I assure him of this:  hopefully, the next statement will not take that length of time.  I accept that it is not acceptable for that period of time to have elapsed.  His points are well noted.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Gregory Campbell.  Gregory?

Gregory Campbell: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  I was unaware that I was going to be called.  The Minister is not long in office and has been reporting on a meeting at which he was not present.  Would he agree with me that the housing stress in West Tyrone that he mentioned is applicable across Northern Ireland and that the housing associations will need to concentrate their minds on that in 2016-17?

Lord Morrow: I thank the Member.  He has done very well, given that he did not get prior notice that he was going to be asking a question.
If we had housing stress in just one area, we could target that area more directly.  Unfortunately, housing stress goes right across Northern Ireland, so it is a big issue.  I think that it will be tackled only by more innovative ways forward.  That is the task and the challenge for me, my Department and whoever my successor will be.  They are going to have to really get to grips with housing stress, housing need and the housing waiting list, because, quite frankly, it is just not acceptable.  Having said that, we must not let that blind us to the fact that there are many good things happening and houses are being provided.  We need to do even more.  We can and, hopefully, we will.

Executive Committee Business

Police Pensions (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016

David Ford: I beg to move
That the draft Police Pensions (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.
I introduced the Police Pensions (Consequential Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 in February, following a request by the Department of Finance and Personnel, further to that by HM Treasury, to amend the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014.  However, during the drafting of that legislation, the Department of Finance and Personnel asked for the removal of a clause relating to the protection of increases in guaranteed minimum pensions after the abolition of contracting out, as the abolition of contracting out had yet to be provided for in the Northern Ireland legislation.  Schedule 13 to the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, introduced in June 2015, now makes provision for the abolition of contracting out by way of amendment to the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.
The Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 modifies the definition of "cessation date" and specifically introduces a date of 6 April 2016 for the abolition of contracting out for salary-related schemes.  The changes are technical in nature to ensure the protection of guaranteed minimum pension benefits for members who have transferred from the 1988 or 2006 police pension scheme into the 2015 police pension scheme.  The draft consequential provisions regulations before the House today have been the subject of a targeted consultation.  The consultation ran from 2 October to 6 November and no specific comments were received.  The regulations have been subject to an equality screening exercise and no equality issues were identified.
On 3 December last year, the Justice Committee agreed that it was content with the draft regulations, and it is with its support that I bring the draft regulations before the House today.  I commend the draft regulations to the House.

Alastair Ross: I will speak very briefly on the motion today on behalf of the Committee.  As the Minister has already outlined, the statutory rule makes a technical amendment to existing rules for police pensions contained within the Public Service Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, following the introduction of the Pensions Act (Northern Ireland) 2015.  In line with other public pension schemes, the amendment is required to introduce the protection of increases in guaranteed minimum pensions following the abolition of contracting out.
In December, the Committee noted the detail of the proposed changes and considered the statutory rule itself more recently at the meeting on 7 January 2015.  The Committee noted that the policy intention of the rule relates to the protection of guaranteed minimum pension benefit for police officers who transfer from the old to the new pension schemes.  At our meeting on 7 January 2015, the Committee agreed to recommend that the statutory rule be affirmed by the Assembly and therefore supports the motion today.

David Ford: I am beginning to think that I should perhaps tell Lord Morrow that it is possible for a honeymoon to last longer than the first half hour.  As usual, when we deal with these technical matters, I thank the Chair for his input.  In particular, the Committee gives detailed consideration to some of those quite arcane and technical points at times.  In thanking the Committee and the Chair for their input, I again state that I am complying with the requirements of DFP to ensure that we have the appropriate arrangements to deal with the new Public Service Pensions Act.  On that basis, I again commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the draft Police Pensions (Consequential Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2016 be approved.

Mr Speaker: Given our very efficient and rapid progress, can we just take our ease until the next Minister comes along?

Rates (Amendment) Bill:  Accelerated Passage

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel.  You are very welcome.

Mervyn Storey: I beg to move
That the Rates (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 75/11-16] proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.
Thank you, Mr Speaker.  Maybe the next time, you will ask the Minister of Justice to speak a little slower and that will mean that our passage here will not be just as quick.
I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the motion, which will provide enabling powers for two commercial rating measures.  There are two substantive clauses in the Bill.  The first provides a power to enhance rate relief for community amateur sports clubs (CASCs), subject to criteria to be prescribed in subordinate legislation, which will be subject to affirmative resolution of the Assembly.
The second allows commercial window displays to be disregarded from occupation for rating purposes and is essentially an anti-blight measure suggested by businesses and advanced by my Department.  The measure is untried anywhere else in the United Kingdom and is time-bound in the new clause to the end of 31 March 2017 with the potential to extend further.
My predecessor appeared before the Committee on 17 November 2015 to explain to the Committee, as required under Standing Order 42(3), why it is necessary for this particular Bill to proceed by way of accelerated passage and the consequences should it not be granted.  Minister Foster had a productive session with the Committee, and I thank the Committee members and Chair for the responsible way that they recognised the need to expedite the process for the Bill and also for the Committee's support in seeking Assembly approval for accelerated passage.
The use of accelerated passage is not something that any Minister takes lightly.  I believe that the best way to take forward legislation is to have a full Committee procedure in which legislation can be scrutinised and any outstanding issues resolved to the satisfaction of the Committee.  That is undoubtedly the way in which legislation should be advanced.  There were a number of factors, however, that prevented my Department bringing the Bill forward to the Assembly through the normal passage procedure.  I will take the opportunity, as required under Standing Order 42(4), to explain to the House why I am seeking accelerated passage, the consequences of it not being granted and how I will minimise future use of the mechanism.
There have been delays outside my Department's control in bringing forward the Bill.  Essentially, the policy process in relation to the Bill commenced immediately following commitments made during a motion in the Assembly in 2011.  From that point, the issue was taken up by DCAL as the policy-competent Department, which then referred the matter to Sport NI.
The whole concept of community amateur sports clubs and their status for tax purposes, including the matter of their treatment for rating purposes, then became the subject of a recent state aid case in GB taken against Her Majesty's Government.  The decision was then not reported until 30 April 2015.  It remains an issue for the Department, and a final assessment needs to be made so that we do not fall foul of state aid rules.  However, it is no bar to the Department taking forward an enabling power in that regard.  Just as it was preparing to do so, the Department was then held up by further issues from the recent private Member's Bill on rate relief for community amateur sports clubs, which fell at Second Stage.
Members will already be aware of my party’s position on that Bill, and I do not intend to go over that old ground today.  Needless to say, it had the effect of further delaying the Department’s Bill.  That has all contributed to the need for accelerated passage if the Bill is to be passed in this mandate.  I want to assure Members that the Bill will come to them as soon as possible following Executive-level clearance.
The commercial window displays disregard will now see the light of day, which is a signal to the business sector that we continue take the ideas promoted by it very seriously.  The provision will help to improve high streets and shopping areas at the earliest possible date.  As Members know, the enabling power relating to relief for community amateur sports clubs will permit the further consultation work on the substantive changes to be made through subordinate legislation to take place, and my predecessor informed the Committee that I intend to undertake a targeted eight-week consultation on the issue as early as possible.  Early Royal Assent may enable both changes to be made in the 2016-17 rating year, subject to the consultation outcome and Land and Property Services administrative requirements.
I reiterate that accelerated passage is not an attempt to shield the Bill from proper scrutiny by the Committee or the Assembly.  The Committee has been aware of the Bill's content since September of last year and has had briefings on the policy content in meetings dating back to April last year.  The Bill is short, and I trust that the content is not contentious in any way; there are now significant safeguards built in by way of enabling powers; and any final policy on the sports clubs policy will not be implemented without a debate in the Assembly.
Turning now to my obligations under Standing Order 42(4)(c), as I have indicated, where possible, I believe that legislation should be taken through the normal process, as that ensures that due process is followed and the Committee is afforded adequate time to scrutinise a Bill clause by clause.  I will take all necessary steps to ensure that the accelerated passage mechanism is not exercised unnecessarily .  I resort to that approach in exceptional circumstances, which I have outlined.
Bearing in mind that Members will have the opportunity to raise issues on the detail of the Bill during Second Stage, I seek the support of the House for accelerated passage for the Bill and look forward to hearing Members' comments. I look forward to the Assembly showing the same all-party support for accelerated passage that was demonstrated by the Committee.

Daithí McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.  I will not labour the debate any longer than is necessary; we have enough ahead of us today as it is.
The Department originally briefed the Committee on the Bill on 9 September and advised that it intended to seek accelerated passage.  The Department also informed the Committee that it would consult publicly on the proposed regulations on enhanced rate relief for premises that are used solely for certain prescribed recreations that are to be made under clause 1.  In evidence to the Committee on 17 November, the Minister at that time outlined the reasons for accelerated passage and the need for the changes to take effect.  The Department also advised that it is minded to propose that the enhanced rate relief applies only to community amateur sports clubs that do not have liquor licences.
I will not rehearse the detail of the Committee’s deliberations at this point, as that can be covered when we consider the principles of the Bill during the next debate.  Suffice to say that the Committee decided that it would be supportive of the Minister’s proposal for the Bill to receive accelerated passage.
I should point out that the Committee was mindful that, if accelerated passage is granted by the Assembly, it will mean that the Committee will not have the opportunity to scrutinise some important issues during the normal Committee Stage.  In view of that fact, the Committee agreed that, in advance of the Bill's being introduced to the Assembly, it would schedule oral briefings from panels of stakeholders, including representatives of the main amateur sporting bodies and applicable business-sector representatives on the proposals for enhanced relief for certain CASCs that will flow eventually from the Bill.  I shall outline the findings from the evidence in the next debate.  However, on behalf of the Committee, I wish to support the motion that the Bill be granted accelerated passage.

Ian McCrea: Like the Chair, I will be short.  At this point, I suppose that there is very little to say other than that the Committee agreed to support accelerated passage being granted.  It was not necessarily something that everyone in the Committee was happy about, and I do not think that anyone in the House is happy about agreeing to accelerated passage because of the work that Committees do in scrutinising legislation.
Whilst there was an element of scrutiny in the previous private Member's Bill, certainly with respect to amateur sports clubs, there was a slight concern that we were not getting enough time to deal with the other part.  But I think it is proof that Committees are willing, where necessary, to grant accelerated passage, and in this case I think it is one of those pieces of legislation that is necessary, certainly in respect of the timing.  I will have more to say in respect of the later debate, but we will certainly be supporting accelerated passage and hoping that it passes without any difficulties.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Chair for his comments, and also Mr McCrea.  He makes a valid point in relation to the work of the Committees.  Not wishing to rehearse all that was said in this House yesterday when we discussed the Legal Complaints and Regulations Bill, I think that is another example, and there are others in this Assembly, where we have demonstrated that when a Department and a Committee work together we can actually have an enhanced outcome in relation to the original policy intent.  We look forward to hearing the detail of the concerns raised by the Chair when we move into the Second Stage of the Bill in a few moments' time.
I thank Members for their help in bringing it to this stage, and I thank them for their contributions.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed, I remind Members that this motion requires cross-community support.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That the Rates (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 75/11-16] proceed under the accelerated passage procedure.

Rates (Amendment) Bill:  Second Stage

Mervyn Storey: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Rates (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 75/11-16] be agreed.
I very much welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this short Bill, which brings forward two targeted measures to amend legislation pertaining to the commercial rating sector.  I have touched upon some of these issues in the preceding debate, so I ask Members to bear with me if some points are reiterated within this Second Stage.  However, given the day that it is — the Chair has alluded to the fact that we may be here for a considerable number of hours — I have no doubt that, as Minister for Finance, I will later hear many arguments repeated and repeated and repeated in relation to these issues, so I suppose, Mr Speaker, that you can forgive me for indulging in a bit of repetition for a moment.
Before turning to the detail of the Bill, I want to take the opportunity to thank the Finance and Personnel Committee for its policy work on this issue in recent months.  I also think it is an important issue for our citizens and for the public.  If the public took the time to see the huge amount of work that our Committees carry out, I think that they would really appreciate the invaluable contribution that Committees make.  This is no less the case in terms of the policy work on this issue in recent months.  In particular, I want to thank the Finance and Personnel Committee for the helpful evidence sessions that it held with sports bodies and the hospitality sector at the end of last year.
I also want to express specific thanks to the Chair of the Finance Committee. The new sports and recreation relief power within this Bill, and the subsequent subordinate legislation will, I believe, serve to complement much of his work in this area in recent years.  I also want to take time to acknowledge the fact that the Chair of the Committee has actively supported the accelerated passage motion for this Bill, both earlier today and at a related Committee session back in November when the new First Minister, as the then Finance Minister, put her case for an accelerated process.  I commend him for his responsible cross-party approach to the Bill, drawing a line in the sand on previous disagreements in this area despite his own clear policy preferences.  That is appreciated, and sometimes that does happen where a particular Bill happens to be a private Member's Bill and there is a disagreement.  However, I think we are endeavouring to find a way through the differences.  Today is an attempt to find that agreed position.
The Bill concludes a much broader range of rating legislation taken forward by my Department through this mandate and takes the opportunity presented in the closing months of the mandate to progress some final adjustments in respect of commercial rating.
I will start this debate by providing an overview of the Bill's contents and the policy background before moving into the detail of the clauses.  First, I will deal with the new sport and recreation provision.  Members will be aware that my party has long had an interest in securing provision in this area, on the proviso that the final policy is a measured one that weighs up the interests of the wider body of commercial ratepayers.
Earlier in this mandate, during a debate on this issue, a commitment was given to examine the relief provided to community and amateur sports clubs.  As was noted in the accelerated passage debate earlier, my Department's work on this commenced straight away.  The first step was to engage with DCAL, the policy-competent Department in this area.  There followed a period during which the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister undertook her own analysis of the policy options available in this area alongside Sport NI with a view to reporting back to DFP.  That work effectively ceased, however, when a private Member's Bill consultation was launched by the Culture, Arts and Leisure Minister's party colleague Mr McKay.  As a result of that intervention, my Department had to turn its attention to the specific proposals advocated in Mr McKay's Bill.  My Department highlighted several concerns with the approach taken in those proposals.
Many of the issues raised by my predecessors were not new; indeed, they were central to the 1979 Lawrence report on this issue.  They were raised again by the Northern Ireland hospitality sector, which had notable concerns about the proposals in Mr McKay's Bill.  Put very generally, the hospitality sector raised competition issues with Mr McKay's proposals.  Those issues centred on the fact that any proposal to enhance sport and recreation relief to 100% could have the effect of placing licensed sports clubs — those with a liquor licence — in such an advantageous position so as to affect trade in the wider licensed hospitality sector.  Those concerns were relayed on numerous occasions.
I do not propose to outline again the detailed issues at play in balancing those considerations today.  Members can read about them in their own time in the Finance Committee's minutes of evidence.  If they want to take some time during this afternoon's Budget debate, I am sure that would be one way in which they could spend their time profitably.  Suffice it to say that my Department will also be moving to undertake the required outstanding consultation work on its preferred policy in this area in line with the progression of this Bill.  The consultation work with the wider business sector will aim to fill in the gaps in due process that were unattended to in the process undertaken by Mr McKay.
The private Member's Bill consultation also broadly coincided with an important EU state aid case taken against the UK Government in respect of the preferential treatment of community amateur sports clubs in the rest of the UK under corporation tax and business rates.  The case was taken by the Association of Golf Club Owners in 2013.  That state aid case effectively halted development on all areas associated with any policy change in this area between the filing of the complaint and the judgement, which was not received until the end of April 2015.  Following the judgement, my Department moved to finalise a Bill with an enabling power to enhance sport and recreation relief to 100% in certain prescribed cases.
The introduction of the Bill was again delayed by the introduction of the competing private Member's Bill just prior to the summer recess.  The Member introduced his Bill in the full knowledge that a departmental Bill had been prepared.  My predecessor, who is now the First Minister, correctly viewed the option of introducing a second Bill on the same policy area at that stage as undesirable in terms of the impression it would give of the Assembly as a legislative body.  To that end, this Bill comes before you today under the accelerated passage process so as to complete its passage before the end of the mandate. No alternative was open to us.
Members will be pleased to hear that the second policy given effect to by this Bill had a much smoother development process. The idea was put forward by Mr Peter Murray of the Buttercrane Shopping Centre in Newry. The policy goal was modest and would see a policy put in place to permit commercial window displays advertising shops and businesses. Its result would be to help the appearance of town centres while simultaneously highlighting other businesses in the immediate area. Building on this idea, my Department undertook a targeted consultation on the issue last year and reported on the issue to the Committee in April, after which the Committee signalled that it was content with the policy, subject to any refinements thought necessary by the Department in developing the legislation that we see before us today.
Let me be clear: no one sees this micro-policy as the answer to the issues presented by vacant units on our high streets. That trend is rooted in several factors outside the control of the rating system, let alone this Assembly. It is an issue for Members, for me as an MLA for my own constituency and for all of our colleagues in this Chamber. The issue of vacant properties persists, and it remains a challenge for us today. However, we can play our part. The empty shops rates concession had its origins in an idea put forward by my colleague Mr Sammy Wilson and also by the Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce. It has since been replicated all over the United Kingdom and has now seen 525 new businesses occupying premises in Northern Ireland.
We also took forward our own revaluation exercise in Northern Ireland. Lisney commented on the effects of this process in Belfast only last week, stating that:
“Occupational demand in Belfast city centre's prime retail area has experienced a notable increase in 2015, as improved consumer sentiment and the rates rebalancing took effect.”
I think that is something to be noted; it is something to be welcomed. It is something which, I think, indicates that progress has been made.  I view this short Bill as the completion of a cycle of primary legislation associated with commitments made by my predecessors during this Assembly term.
Turning to the detail of the legislation, clause 1 provides a power for the Department to increase the rates reduction under the article 31 sports and recreation exemption in the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 in certain cases. Article 31 of the 1977 Order provides for a reduction of 80% in the normal rate in respect of certain hereditaments which are shown in the net annual value (NAV) list as being used solely for the purposes of a prescribed recreation. A prescribed recreation is a recreation, whether conducted outdoors or indoors, which, in the opinion of my Department, demands an appreciable degree of physical effort and which is of a kind specified by DFP by subordinate legislation. Such prescription is periodically reviewed and can be found at present within the Rates (Recreational Hereditaments) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007.
Subsections (1) and (2) of the clause will insert a new paragraph (5A) into article 31 of the 1977 Order which enables my Department, by regulations, to provide that the reduction in the normal rate provided under that article may be increased from 80% to 100% in cases prescribed in regulations.
Subsections (1) and (3) of the clause provides that the regulations made as a result of the new provision will be subject to affirmative resolution control by this Assembly.
Members will wish to note that I am presently minded to use such powers to increase the level of rate reduction from 80% to 100% in the case of hereditaments in which intoxicating liquor is not sold.
That is dependent, however, on further research and analysis by DFP, and on consultation with stakeholders and others.  My Department will soon be launching a consultation on the issue in order to be in a position to utilise the new enabling power in due course.  The consultation will fill in the gaps in due process left from the previous initiative associated with the private Member's Bill and the useful sessions undertaken by the Finance Committee on the policy area.
Clause 2 ensures that, where shop fronts or shop window displays are used in empty retail premises, ratepayers will effectively continue to receive 50% empty property relief or an exclusion, if that is applicable.  Without that, rates would otherwise be charged at the full occupied rate.  It is a measure that was originally trialled in 2012, on foot of a suggestion from Belfast Chamber of Trade.  The suggestion related to non-commercial window displays.  However, the new clause extends the potential use to commercial window displays.  The provision is initially time-bound but can be further extended should the policy prove to be successful.
The clause outlines the properties that will be covered and provides that the depth of the window display must not exceed 1·5 metres, while the area of the window display must not exceed 5% of the floor area of the part of the building fronted by the window display.  The geographical area to be covered by the regulations will be laid out in subsequent legislation by the Department, in line with the provision's commencement.  Given the ongoing issue of empty shops, the clause will play a small part in allowing shopping areas to be made more vibrant and attractive to shoppers and in promoting nearby businesses, without any ratepayers being penalised.
Clause 3 and the schedule give effect to consequential repeal provisions.
The remaining clauses simply deal with the interpretation and commencement of the Bill’s provisions.  I look forward to the support of the Assembly in taking forward those important measures.

Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister.  Before I proceed, I want to draw the House's attention to an issue that I have had to address before.  Members will note that officials sit in the Officials' Box, and they are there for a very specific purpose, which is to provide support and advice on matters of detail or issues that may arise in the Chamber.  They are not, under any circumstances, there to provide contact or communication with Members during a debate.  Their role is completely non-party political.  They provide support to the Minister.  Unfortunately, this morning, a Member spent several minutes in the Box with officials, and I noted that.  That Member need not expect to be called to contribute to the debate, because I have no way of judging what the content of that conversation was.  Members should take note of that, because I intend to ensure that it does not happen again.

Daithí McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.  I was going to have a wee chat with Brian there later on, but I think that I will hold my whisht for now, Mervyn.

Mr Speaker: Do you want to speak here?  Be careful about that.

Daithí McKay: A Cheann Comhairle, as I mentioned in my contribution to the previous debate, it may be useful to outline to Members the Committee's preliminary scrutiny of the principles of the Bill, in the context of supporting the Department's request for accelerated passage and to inform the contributions of Committee members to the debate.
I start by addressing the more straightforward of the two substantive clauses, which is clause 2.  DFP wrote to the Committee in November 2014 regarding a targeted consultation.  That followed a proposal put forward to disregard the commercial use of window displays in empty shops in determining rateable or chargeable occupation.
Although it was noted that all respondents were supportive of the proposals, it was pointed out that some concern was expressed by the ministerial advisory group, which felt that there should be stringent controls or safeguards to limit abuse or prevent an unfair competitive advantage.  In response to Committee queries on that point, DFP advised that it was not minded to include such controls since the operation of the scheme would be as simple as possible, but safeguards could be built in through subordinate legislation.  The Minister may, therefore, wish to pick up on that point later in today's debate.
We must continue to look for innovative measures to help to support and nurture businesses in our towns, which have, over recent years, been blighted by the economic downturn, as a result of which many businesses continue to struggle, as Members will be well aware.  The provisions in clause 2 are, therefore, a very welcome development.
I move on to the enabling provision in clause 1.  The Committee was advised that the Department will propose in its consultation on the regulations that the enhanced rate relief be limited to community amateur sports clubs (CASCs) that do not have liquor licences.  In noting that the estimated cost of this enhanced relief would be in the region of £750,000, members sought to establish the number of clubs that would see this benefit.  In response, departmental officials advised that the calculations were based on an estimate of the 70 to 80 clubs that currently qualify.
To inform the contribution of its members to today's debate, the Committee agreed to schedule oral briefings from a panel of the main amateur sporting bodies and umbrella groups as well as from applicable business sector representatives.  Those briefings took place before the Christmas recess, and the discussions focused on the merits or otherwise of the Department's proposed approach in the regulations that CASCs with licences to sell alcohol would not be able to avail themselves of the enhanced relief — the additional 20% on sporting facilities — despite paying 100% rates on the bar area.  That raised the issue of whether the sporting facilities of licensed clubs will, in effect, be penalised compared with those of unlicensed clubs.
The Committee questioned the sporting bodies in particular on the perception that clubs with licensed premises may have a competitive advantage over the hospitality sector.  The sporting bodies, including Ulster Rugby, the GAA, the IFA, the NI Sports Forum and Sport NI, highlighted a number of points in response.  Amongst other things, they pointed to the social and economic value that CASCs bring to their communities and made the argument that CASCs with licensed premises reinvest any profits in improving their facilities, which exist for community benefit.  A notable point that arose from the evidence was that, of the 46 rugby clubs, only two or three do not have bars.  It was clear, therefore, that the Department's proposed regulations under clause 1 would not provide any major benefit to local rugby clubs overall.
From the other perspective, in the evidence from Hospitality Ulster and some local businesses, the Committee heard concerns that, in some instances, licensed CASCs openly have regular weekly functions to generate income and that that can impact on the ability of local bars and restaurants to compete.
One area discussed during the panel briefings was the potential for applying a revenue or receipts threshold when assessing rates relief to licensed CASCs.  At its meeting on 9 December, the Committee discussed the issues with departmental officials, including whether there would be scope to empower local government with similar powers to those applying in Britain.  This would leave councils, which have local knowledge, to apply the enhanced relief.  The Committee commissioned the Assembly Research and Information Service on that point, and its research was circulated to members just in time for today's debate.  I am sure that the Committee will wish to share that research with the Department.
It would be useful if the Minister could comment on that and on the other issues that I referred to when he makes his winding-up speech.  In particular, it would be helpful to have clarity on the envisaged timetable for the subordinate legislation under clause 1 and, more generally, on how the delegated powers will operate, including whether they will be consistent with provisions in the Rates Order.
I will now make a few comments from a personal position and on behalf of Sinn Féin.  I appreciate the Minister's kind words this morning.
Regardless of the fierce disagreement at Second Stage of the private Member's Bill  — there is no need to rehearse those arguments — we should continue to try to seek consensus on this issue.
My concern is that there is a possibility of creating, in effect, two tiers of community and amateur sports clubs.  As the Committee found out, there is a disproportionate impact on rugby clubs, almost all of which find themselves on the wrong side of the divide.  That said, I recognise that the Department has moved on the issue.  In its proposals, as outlined by the previous Minister, it uses the CASC criteria, as I proposed, and introduces 100% relief as proposed — just not for clubs with bars.  In light of that, I am considering bringing forward amendments to try to address the imbalance.  That imbalance is not in the Bill, which is quite wide in scope, but in the policy direction that the previous Minister outlined.
In conclusion, the Bill is a move in the right direction.  Whilst there are still differences between my position and the Department's position, given that Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage are coming up, there are opportunities to have further discussions and conversations about where we can reach consensus.  It may not be possible at the end of the day, but the Assembly will have an opportunity to debate this further and vote on which way it feels the Department should move forward on community and amateur sports clubs.

Ian McCrea: I will start from where the Member has just ended.  I am a wee bit concerned by the news that he intends to table amendments.  We talk about not getting an opportunity to scrutinise legislation, never mind getting an opportunity to see the amendments.  I hope that he will share those amendments with the Committee to, if nothing else, at least give us an opportunity to consider them.  I appreciate that he has carried out a piece of work on community and amateur sports clubs and should know the issue inside out by now.  I know, however, from speaking to clubs, especially those that do not have a bar, that they are crying out for this.
As the Member said, there is an issue with clubs that have a bar, but I believe that this is the right way to go.  I think that the situation is unfair, and, even if we learnt nothing else from those in the hospitality sector who compete against larger clubs that host events, as well as against hoteliers and whatnot in the locality, we learned that we need to be mindful of that.  We hoped that the Department and the Minister would work alongside those in the hospitality sector to see whether there was some way of dealing with the anomaly, as they see it, of charging according to income rather than the building.  
I have no doubt that the Member is very passionate about this, but I believe that keeping the position that clubs with a licensed bar get only 80% relief is the right way to go.  I have no power over the Member and cannot stop him tabling amendments, but I hope that he takes that into consideration and brings any amendments to the Committee so that we at least get a bit of an idea of where he is going.
For me, clause 2 is equally, if not slightly more, important.  Whilst the rating of sports clubs is already at 80%, it will move those that do not have the bar up to 100%.
In respect of town centres and shopping centres, the Bill will allow:
"commercial window displays to be disregarded from occupation for rating purposes."
For me, we need language that ordinary people can understand.  I know that there are technical terms in the legislation, but, for someone like me, it is important that we put it in terms that people will understand.  From my understanding of it and if I put it in terms that I understand, if there is an empty premises that is receiving reduced rates and a shop nearby wants to advertise in it, it is deemed as occupied and is therefore charged 100% rates.  Should the Bill be passed today, it will hopefully give that a 50% reduction and bring it in line with the empty shops.  I think that is certainly a good thing.  I believe the business community brought it forward to the Minister's predecessor.  She listened and acted, and I think it is a good thing that the Minister is bringing it forward here today.  Hopefully, it will see our town centres and shopping centres being revitalised, especially vacant shops.
This is a good piece of legislation.  Accelerated passage is not something that we wanted to do.  It is disappointing that we could not resolve this in the previous private Member's Bill, but, nonetheless, we are where we are.  I certainly support the passage of the Bill.

Claire Hanna: I thank the Minister for his introduction.  We have a long day in front of us, so I will not labour the points.  There are about 20 Bills, I think, going through at various stages, and if we did not give this one accelerated passage, it would not make it through.  It is a good Bill.  They are good provisions, and we support them, but I do not think we should overuse the accelerated passage tool.  Some of the blame for its current use has to be placed with the dysfunction that has characterised the Assembly for much of the mandate.
We welcome the provisions.  There are wider issues about our rating scheme.  It is the one tool that we have, and we use it a lot.  We are in danger of rating schemes becoming illegitimate.  When there are so many exemptions, other people are picking up the slack and it loses some legitimacy.  I have submitted a detailed response to the live consultation on that, which primarily reflects the views of traders in my constituency.
Window displays are useful, and they can take the bad look off dereliction.  Anything that allows people to use those spaces creatively to mitigate the effects of empty premises is welcome.  In my previous job, we used empty shop fronts for exhibitions and so on, and that can be done, whether it is other businesses, voluntary groups or anything that can enhance the area.  However, we do not want to overplay the Potemkin village aspect of things; we need entrepreneurship and real vibrancy back on our high streets.  Just covering up dereliction is not something that we want to do, but it is useful.
We also fully support the community and amateur sports club provision.  This is the departmental version; we supported the private Member's version too.  We want the consultation to proceed, and we hope that the subordinate legislation on that will come forward sooner rather than later.

Leslie Cree: I support the Second Stage.  The Bill, as other Members said, contains two provisions.  The first is an enabling provision to grant enhanced rate relief under article 31 of the 1977 Order to certain premises used for recreational purposes.
The second relates to the use of certain window displays in empty shops.  The scheme has been operating as an interim measure and appears to have worked well.  Clause 2 will extend the application until 31 March 2017.
Clause 1 attempts to create a situation where sports premises can attract 100% rate relief.
As has been referred to, the Bill is similar to a private Member's Bill that recently fell at the Second Stage.  Licensed premises will not be entitled to the additional relief, and regulations to clarify the eligibility conditions will be produced by the Department.  They will, of course, be subject to affirmative resolution by the Assembly in due course.
The situation in the rest of the United Kingdom is similar to what is being proposed.  England and Wales allow registered charities 80% relief on rates for premises that are wholly or mainly used for charitable purposes.  Registered community amateur sports clubs receive 80% relief on the rates for premises that are wholly or mainly used for the purpose of the club or for other CASCs.  In Scotland, mandatory rates relief is given to registered charities and registered CASCs where the premises are used wholly or mainly for charitable or club purposes.  In addition, a discretionary relief is available that may make up the remaining 20% in England, Wales and, indeed, Scotland.  The Assembly is playing catch-up.  I support the Bill's Second Stage.

Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Second Stage of the Rates (Amendment) Bill.  I am standing in for my party colleague, and Committee member, Judith Cochrane who cannot, unfortunately, be with us this morning.
The Bill seeks to amend the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 in two ways:  first, by amending article 31 and permitting a reduction in rates for hereditaments that are prescribed as recreational by DFP; and secondly, by amending schedule 8A to the order by inserting that window displays do not constitute an occupied building, therefore making the owner eligible for empty property relief.
I turn now to clause 1.  I am sure that Members will recognise the general concept, as it was spoken about in the Chamber on 20 October 2015.  At that time, the principle was contained in the private Member's Bill, as mentioned, of Mr Daithí McKay, Chair of the Committee, and was to lower the rates paid by community amateur sports groups.  Whilst my party colleague Judith Cochrane spoke in favour of the private Member's Bill that day, she also highlighted some of her concerns.  On that point, I put on record my support for the proposal, given the significant benefit it would bring to sports clubs around Northern Ireland.  It would demonstrate that, at a legislative level, we are appreciative of the benefits they bring to physical and mental health, the positive community spirit they can nourish and the divisions in communities that they can break down.  Through the rates reduction, sports clubs, which can provide so much public service but have faced greater overheads in recent years, can reinvest money to develop and expand their reach and activities.
I turn now to clause 2.  We have something vastly similar in nature but different in scope.  It demonstrates support for businesses operating in difficult times.  Within that clause, which amends schedule 8A, we have a recognition of hereditaments that are empty, but which avail themselves of a shop window, as having unoccupied status.  That acts as an incentive to maintain the facade of an unoccupied business, which is something that our current system fails to do.  At present, as I understand it, commercial properties that are unoccupied but have a window display are ineligible for 50% empty property relief.  That is financially detrimental to business owners who could seek to start up another business in that property.  In addition, it does not act as an incentive to maintain the facade of the unoccupied building and support surrounding businesses.
In conclusion, clause 2 will demonstrate to the business sector and the public that the Assembly fully supports SMEs in Northern Ireland.  Moreover, I believe the quoted figure of £750,000 to be a small sum to pay if it supports existing businesses.  Indeed, that measure will act as encouragement for those who have gone out of business to maintain an attractive window display.  As a result, surrounding businesses will not suffer the loss of income that  is so often the case in areas that have been struggling.  To elaborate further on this point; I have spoken to my party colleague in East Belfast and the positive impacts that such a measure had during the Giro d'Italia in 2014 were confirmed to me.  During this time, unoccupied shops were given an attractive facade, with a positive financial impact being noted by local businesses in the area.
On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Rates (Amendment) Bill that has been brought by the Department of Finance and Personnel.  I believe that it will bring positive outcomes for everyone in Northern Ireland at a community and indeed business level.

Gary Middleton: As this is my first time speaking since the new Finance Minister has been in place, I want to welcome him, thank him for all the work that he did in his previous role and wish him well in this role.  I trust that he will do as good a job in this post as he did in his previous one.
Of course, I rise to support the Bill and the comments of my colleagues who have spoken before me.  I believe that it is a good-news Bill; one that should be non-contentious.  For that reason, I plan to keep my comments brief.  We had several very useful evidence sessions with various sports organisations, be it Ulster Rugby, the GAA or the IFA, to name a few.  We also heard from the hospitality sector of course.  In hearing from these organisations, it is important that we get balance in doing all that we can to support sports clubs in the difficulties that they face whilst also supporting the hospitality sector and ensuring that there are no unfair advantages.
Clause 1 allows the Department the power to increase rates reduction and, in some cases, exemption in relation to amateur sports clubs that do not have a liquor licence.  That will harmonise the treatment of such clubs with that of community halls.  It is also positive that the clause will not preclude clubs from gaining full relief if they obtain occasional licences.  I know of quite a few clubs in my constituency, Foyle, that hold charity fundraising events and other specific events.  They will be eligible for that.
Under clause 2 on shopfronts and window displays, those commercial and non-commercial premises will continue to receive 50% empty property relief.  I think that that benefits not only those who own empty shops, but existing businesses in allowing them to advertise.  Ultimately, we want to see empty shops being filled.  I think that this will be a welcome step to try to encourage city centres to be more vibrant and user-friendly.  Thankfully, we are starting to see a lot fewer empty shops in towns and city centres.  In my constituency, we saw the benefits of window dressing during the UK City of Culture year in 2013.  The place looked well and was attractive to tourists.
There are no issues with clause 3 or the rest of the clauses.  I support the Bill and encourage everybody to unite behind it.

Robin Swann: I congratulate the Minister on his new role.  He will be aware of what I am bringing forward here.  He mentioned earlier that he will hear arguments repeated time and time again.  I can assure you, Minister, that you have not heard this argument repeatedly; not in the past four years, today or, probably, in the next four years.  With regard to the Bill and the opportunity that presented itself following Daithí McKay's private Member's Bill on rates relief for community amateur sports clubs, I feel that there has been the exclusion of one particular sport from the Rates (Recreational Hereditaments) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007.  That is the sport of pigeon racing.  Clause 1 refers to the Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977.  It is that order that actually sets out the prescribed definition of recreations as recognised by LPS.  As I said, they are set out in the 2007 order.  I am well aware that pigeon racing is not recognised as a sport either by Sport NI or currently by DCAL, but that is an issue that I am working on with them both at a Northern Ireland level through the Northern Ireland Pigeon Association and a UK level through the Royal Pigeon Racing Association.  The Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure has been in support of that.
I am trying to take the opportunity through the rates relief Bill to amend the LPS hereditaments order from 2007, because it is disingenuous that some sports are listed under that 2007 prescribed activities list but are not recognised as sports by Sport NI.  I feel that there is an opportunity to introduce pigeon racing in that, and that would allow it to avail itself of the 80% rate relief that is currently there or potentially give the Minister the opportunity, through regulation, to bring that up to 100% rate relief.  By bringing this forward as part of the Bill, I am also giving the Minister an opportunity to be a trailblazer and a champion for pigeon men and women across Northern Ireland.
I could go on at great length about why I believe pigeon racing should be recognised as a sport and how I hope it will be in future.  The European sports charter sets that out quite clearly.  The Minister referred to it and to where his Department takes guidance from.  That definition allows sport to be described as:
"improving physical fitness and mental well-being, forming social relationships or obtaining results in competition at all levels."
I believe that that scope is wide enough to include pigeon racing.
Some of the Minister's officials have recommended that pigeon clubs take the opportunity to become charities.  I do not think that that is a realistic possibility for many clubs across Northern Ireland due to their membership and demographic, especially the age range.  It would exclude more clubs than it would allow.
In his opening comments, the Minister mentioned the possibility of bringing forward changes in regulations rather than through the Bill.  He will know that, at this minute in time, I am minded to bring forward an amendment to the Bill, but if I could have a conversation with him and see that it might be better done under regulations, I am prepared to do that for the sake of the sport.  When he is taking forward his targeted consultations — I think that that was the phrase that he used in his opening comments — and when his departmental officials are drawing up a list of the groups that they will specifically target for that consultation, I ask him to include the Royal Pigeon Racing Association, the Northern Ireland Pigeon Association, the Irish Homing Union, northern region, the Ulster Federation and the East Down Combine of pigeon clubs.  I want to put a marker down that, through the progress of the Bill, I would like to take the opportunity that has been presented to include pigeon racing under its scope.

John McCallister: I had almost forgotten that Mr Swann was an avid follower of pigeon racing, but I am sure that my constituents will be glad to hear his comments as I have quite a few who are involved in it.
In welcoming the Minister in one of his first appearances in his new role, I will use a sporting term.  I am not sure whether he views it as promotion or a relegation, but, being a member of the Finance Committee, I view it very much as a promotion.  It does not get any bigger in politics than being on the Finance and Personnel Committee and being Minister of Finance and Personnel.
Issues raised by the Buttercrane centre gave development to a policy area in the Minister's Bill.  It is one great example of how responsive the Assembly and Executive can be when businesses identify a problem and lobby and campaign.  We and they can then change the policy and identify where it could make an impact.  From listening to the debate, there certainly seems to be widespread support for that being how we improve.  I am sure that the Minister's constituency is no different from mine.
With the revaluation and the change in councils, rates have been a major issue across my constituency over the past 18 months and there have been concerns about the amount to be paid.  Businesses in small towns like Rathfriland or Kilkeel are struggling with rates and now see them as a major burden.  We will have to continue to look at that.  I am very supportive of what the Minister proposes for vacant shops and shop windows and how we can do that to support small businesses.
I turn to community amateur sports clubs.  In Committee, I was supportive of some of the early contributions of Mr McKay on his private Member's Bill.  I am very supportive of the concept, because of the work that our community amateur sports clubs do.  Tens of thousands of people give of their time and talent every week to coach, work and support, whether it is cutting the grass, playing or whatever, to build a club.  The benefit that that gives to our communities is enormous.  On the Health Committee a number of years ago, we looked at suicide and self-harm.  The link between good physical health and good mental health is long-established.  Community cohesion and health and well-being are things that we should support.
The Minister's dilemma is probably how he finds the balance between what is affordable and what we can do to support genuine community amateur sports clubs and, on the other hand, how we make sure that that does not disadvantage businesses in towns that are paying rates at full value and may be struggling in some cases to meet their rates bill.
I am supportive of where the Minister is going with this.  My one big concern, which, I suspect, he will know — Mr McKay touched on it as well — is around rugby clubs.  Recently, I have been in a few rugby clubs, even in his constituency.  I urge him to see if there is anything we can do to give more support to the 46 or 47 rugby clubs that may get only limited benefit from the changes.  Those clubs are very much in the community amateur sports clubs bracket.  They run events in-house to raise money to reinvest in their facilities and equipment to keep the team going.  We all know the enormous cost of keeping four or five teams out on the road and playing in tournaments.  That is a real drain on any club's resources.  How can we help?  Is there something that we need to look at to extend it to rugby clubs?  At the minute, one of the downsides of this might be that we do a lot to help a great many clubs and that is to be welcomed, but we leave rugby — a major component of our amateur sports sector — without the help and support that it would otherwise qualify for.
On the whole, I welcome the Bill and its progress to date, but with that one issue around rugby clubs and whether we can look at other ways to mitigate that or bring them into the bracket.

Mervyn Storey: I thank Members for their contributions.  The comments have been interesting.  We have gone from Mr Swann taking flight in relation to pigeons to Mr McCallister advocating — rightly so — for rugby clubs, as well as other comments.  I trust that I will come to each in turn in a few moments.
First of all, I want to address the issues raised by the Chair.  Again I place on record our appreciation and thanks to the Committee and the Chair for the way in which they have approached this issue.  The Chair raised the issue of controls and safeguards, particularly the window displays provision.  I want to give him some assurance on that.  The Bill contains a power to limit the area to which the new power applies.  Likewise, as I noted, the Bill is subject to a sunset clause to allow for a trial period, so I think that that, in a sense, gives us some specific focus in relation to the duration.  Might we look at extending it?  First, we need to see how it goes in the trial period.  My successor or I, whoever it will be, will then give consideration to the future of that issue.
The Department will also shortly undertake the targeted specific consultation for an eight-week period on the use of the enabling power.  It will set out the details of the scheme in the subordinate legislation.  That covers, to some degree, the issue that Mr McCallister raised.  That will give opportunities to sports clubs to comment on the proposals and to give their view.
I will deal with the issue of rugby clubs.  I think that it was the Chair who gave us the figures on the number of rugby clubs that had licensed premises, and I think that there are only two or three that do not.  Those that do are in receipt of 80% relief from their rate, so I do not think that it is a fair representation to say that one element of amateur sport provision, particularly one that makes an invaluable contribution to our communities, is somehow now disadvantaged and is not being given the same priority or importance: it is. Under the existing rules, they have that 80% relief, and I think that they value and appreciate that.
The Chair asked when the sport and recreation enhancement regulations would be in place.  The regulations will be taken forward following the commencement of the Bill.  That is, in turn, dependent on the date when the Bill receives Royal Assent.  As I stated, in-year implementation during 2016-17 may be possible, subject to the consultation outcomes and the view of Land and Property Services.  Obviously, there are considerations that we have to take into account as far as land and property is concerned.
The Chair also referred to local government.  While I take the Member's point regarding local government discretion, this issue needs to be treated with care.  As a previous Minister for Social Development, I know all too well the concerns that local government has at this time in relation to giving local authorities additional powers.  There was a mixed view out there on the regeneration powers.  Some said that they wanted those powers and were disappointed that we had made the decision not to proceed.  Others took the view that, because of the change from 26 councils to the new 11 councils, there is a bedding-in period and there are many challenges.  The Member, who comes from the same constituency as me, will know that, in our council, where previously you were dealing with four authorities, you are now dealing with one.  It is a particular challenge, and we see played out on an almost weekly basis the issues between Ballycastle, Ballymoney, Coleraine and Limavady.  It becomes very parochial, and I suppose that is also a huge challenge for the other authorities.
I am sure that the Member would not want a system that risks or inadequately places another pressure on local government.  That issue needs some more time to be thought through.  The other issue is that we will want to do it in consultation with local authorities because we would not want to just present it to them and not give them the opportunity to raise concerns.
She is not present, but I thank Claire Hanna for her comments about my appointment.  I look forward to carrying out my role and my responsibility to the best of my ability.  It is a daunting task; however, that should never put you off trying to raise the bar for your personal achievements in life, and I thank the First Minister for giving me that privilege.
The Member raised the issue of empty retail units and asked what more we were doing on that.  As I said in my opening comments, we all face this in our constituencies, to a lesser or greater degree.  What I would say about the commercial window display is that that is only one measure.  The issue of vacant retail space is complex and has many causes, and a variety of initiatives will be required to address it.  The answer most likely lies outside the rating system, but I trust that we have endeavoured to our do our part.  We led the way with an empty shops rates concession, with 525 businesses getting up and running in Northern Ireland with a 50% discount off their rates for the first year.
Elsewhere, we have seen the beneficial effects of the re-evaluation exercise in getting prime retail areas back into occupation in Belfast city centre.  I am well aware that it is always a challenge — I think that Mr McCallister referred to this — for Ministers and Departments to get policy and practice as fair and as equitable as is possible.  I know that, as a result of the revaluation, elements of the retail sector have spoken to us, even prior to me taking the post of Finance Minister, about their belief they were treated unfairly, with a huge jump from what they had paid previously to what they were now being asked to pay.  I am conscious of those issues.  That is why there is an attempt in the Bill to be as balanced and as fair as we can, although I think that Mr Swann might not appreciate that that is the case. We have that challenge.
Ms Hanna also referred to clause 1 and asked whether there were wider plans for reviewing the policy.  I have to have an open mind.  Having come into the post, I take on board much of what has been done heretofore. However, when other issues come our way, whether it is an issue of rating or whatever, it is only right and proper that we have an open mind.  The review has a far-reaching remit, and we will look at all aspects of non-domestic rating in the round.  I am aware that, in my constituency, for example, conversations and meetings have been held.  We have taken note of some of the comments made by some of the retailers in our constituency, particularly those about Ballymena.  I also note the point raised by the Member for South Belfast about accelerated passage, and I think that I have addressed those issues.
Mr Cree raised concerns around community amateur sports clubs and policy in GB.  Community amateur sports clubs in the rest of the United Kingdom get the same mandatory relief — 80% — as sports and recreation facilities occupying those properties. To qualify for discretionary top-up relief in GB, providing up to 100% relief, a community amateur sports club must satisfy additional criteria set out by the local authority. There is that slight variation, and it cuts across local government.  Slight additional criteria are set out by the local authorities.
Mr Middleton also raised the issue of empty retail units.  I think that we have covered that in our response to other Members.
Let me come on to the issue raised by Mr Swann about pigeons.  It is no anomaly that Mr Swann raises an issue to do with pigeons, but I am not going to make a play on words about his name.  I am happy to meet him to have a discussion, because he raises a concern, as we all have to do as public representatives when we are lobbied on an issue.  If you have a particular interest or have a particular organisation come to you, it is right and proper that we give due consideration to whatever that issue is.  However, the Bill may not be the best vehicle for extending rate relief to pigeon clubs.
I will quote article 31 of the 1977 Order, which details prescribed recreation.  Maybe the Member will think it through, and we will then have a discussion on it. It states:
"'prescribed recreation' means a recreation, whether conducted indoors or outdoors, which in the opinion of the Department demands an appreciable degree of physical effort and which is of a kind specified"
by DFP through subordinate legislation.  We will, I think, get into a bit of a debate about where the appreciable degree of physical effort comes from.  In that case, it comes more from the pigeon than from the pigeon owner.  I am happy to give way to the Member.

Robin Swann: I thank the Minister for that point.  Bearing in mind the business that is to take place over the rest of the day, I said to the Minister when I was making my contribution that I could get into that debate at length.  I am sure that he is aware that the Rates (Recreational Hereditaments) Order 2007 already covers activities such as model powerboating, model airplane flying and wildfowling.  In my belief, it is about the racing, flagging and training of pigeons, not the actual physical racing, in which it is the pigeon rather than the owner that competes.  I will give the Minister that.  There are, however, activities already covered that involve the same degree, if not a lesser degree, of physical activity as that of the owner of the pigeon, but I am not going to get into that debate today.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Member for his intervention.  I will come back to him shortly to confirm when we will meet.  We will have a lengthy discussion on the issue.  He makes his point well.  It is not my place to put that issue aside and not give it the consideration that it deserves.
In conclusion, I thank Members for their contributions to the debate.

Kieran McCarthy: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.  I did not think that you were coming to a conclusion so quickly.
You mentioned the local authorities.  Is the Minister aware of the real concerns of seven local authorities that have lost some £3 million in the past year?  They will be even further disadvantaged.  There has been a meeting between the authorities and the Environment Minister, but will you reconsider the loss to those local authorities, which will probably put them further into poverty?

Mervyn Storey: The Member is right about the concerns that have been expressed.  An element of that refers to the work of and the decisions taken by the Environment Minister.  The authorities have been speaking to the Minister about that.  In my previous role, I gave commitments and was in the process of working with local authorities on another element of their budget.  I am now in the position of Finance Minister, but, in all these things, I am more than conscious of the concerns that they have.  As Finance Minister, as, I trust, I did when in DSD, I will have an open-door policy for local authorities and anyone else who comes in with concerns.  The Member makes the point well on their behalf.
I commend the Second Stage of the Bill to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Rates (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 75/11-16] be agreed.

Departments Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: I call junior Minister McCann to move the Consideration Stage of the Departments Bill.
Moved. — [Ms J McCann (Junior Minister, Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister).]

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to the Bill.  After putting the Question on clause stand part, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group the three schedules for the Question.  I will then put the Question on the long title.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Departments Bill.  The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Budget 2016-17

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to four hours for the debate.  The Minister will have up to 45 minutes to allocate as he wishes between proposing and making a winding-up speech.  All other Members who wish to speak will have seven minutes.  That does not preclude Members who take an intervention from being awarded an extra minute.  I remind Members that the vote on the motion requires cross-community support.

Mervyn Storey: I beg to move
That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2016-17 as announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 17 December 2015 and set out in the Budget document laid before the Assembly on 13 January 2016.
I am pleased that one of my first duties as Finance Minister is to bring to the House today the Budget for 2016-17.  In any Administration, it is the Budget that underpins the delivery of services and, ultimately, plays a key role in the success or otherwise of those services. In agreeing a Budget for 2016-17, the Executive have provided a stable and balanced platform on which incoming Ministers and their new Departments will be able to build.  It provides support for our key public services, helps protect the vulnerable in our society and paves a way for the new Executive to agree a multi-year Budget from 2017-18 to 2019-2020, which will reflect the priorities in the new Programme for Government.
The Budget process has not been without its challenges.  It seems as though, when I come into post, there are always challenges.  There were challenges when I came into post in DSD, and there were challenges when I came into the Finance Department.  However, I think that we have endeavoured and, over the past number of months, have been able to overcome those difficulties and deal with those challenges.  Those challenges came from the constrained timescale due to the late spending review announcement and the fact that it was produced on the basis of nine future Departments.  It is testament to the collegiate approach of Ministers and their officials that it has been possible to agree a Budget within the timescale necessary to fulfil the commitment in the Fresh Start Agreement.  That has taken considerable effort and work on everybody's part.
It is regrettable that we were not able to have the usual extensive public consultation.  However, I am aware that my officials have engaged with key stakeholders, and I am sure that other Departments have been doing likewise.  In addition, the Executive have agreed that new Ministers will have the flexibility to realign departmental budgets to reflect their priorities in the first monitoring round of the year.  That means that there will still be an opportunity for Assembly Committees and other stakeholders to influence those decisions.
I do not intend to rehearse the detail of my predecessor’s written statement on the Budget.   Members now have a Budget document that provides additional information.  I would, however, like to make a few key points before we debate and vote on the 2016-17 Budget.
Members will be well aware of the financial environment confronting us in 2016-17 and in the years that follow.  The spending review outcome may not have been as bleak as was originally feared, but we still face significant real-terms reductions in funding.  It is impossible continually to do more with less.  Therefore, the challenge facing the Executive is to ensure that we do the right things.  That will mean confronting difficult decisions on what the public sector should and should not do.  In that context, it is imperative that the reform and transformation of the public sector, which commenced under Budget 2015-16, continues and that the process is allowed to progress.
As well as funding under the spending review, the Budget includes the significant additional resources provided for 2016-17 under the Fresh Start Agreement.  In addition, the Executive agreed to provide £135 million to top up welfare arrangements for Northern Ireland and £5 million match funding to tackle paramilitary activity.  Of that funding, £60 million related to tax credits is no longer required for that purpose.  While £30 million of that has been used to fund other pressures, the remaining £30 million has been set aside for further Executive consideration following the outcome of Professor Evason’s work.  Where appropriate, the Fresh Start —

Alex Attwood: Will the Minister give way?

Mervyn Storey: I have only commenced.  I know that the Member would like to use the debate as an opportunity to revisit the Evason report, whether I still work to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and all those issues, but perhaps he will just give me the opportunity to progress.  I have no doubt that he will raise those issues later in the debate, when I will give him the answers that he probably knows I will give him anyway.  That will leave him in the position of putting those points on the record, which is what he wanted to do in the first place.
I return to the overall funding that is available.  The level of funding means that Departments will inevitably face a reduction in resource DEL.  The Executive agreed a limited number of allocations to help to address the more significant pressures facing the key public services. They include £133 million to the Department of Health; £15 million to the Department of Justice for legal aid; £20 million to the Department for Infrastructure for road structural maintenance; £40 million to the Department of Education; and £5 million to the Department for the Economy for the skills agenda.
In addition to the £5 million provided for skills as part of this Budget, I would also like to state my commitment to providing a further £20 million for skills.  This will be funded from the first £20 million available in the June monitoring round.
Although this allocation cannot be ratified until the incoming Executive consider the June monitoring paper from the Finance Minister, I feel it is important to provide education institutions with this early indication that the Executive recognise the importance of the skills agenda, especially in light of the upcoming devolution of corporation tax powers, and that significant funding will be provided.  I want to give the House this assurance because I have seen comments in recent days in relation to this issue and concerns have been raised, and we have also seen the comments from the vice chancellors of our universities.
I have a task of work to do over the next number of weeks, and I, as well the Finance Minister after me, whomever they may be, will also have the task of ensuring that we have made all necessary preparations to maximise the benefit of the devolution of corporation tax.  A key component of that will undoubtedly be in relation to the skills agenda.  I think that is something that we need to keep focused upon.
Although this Budget relates only to 2016-17, the Executive have also agreed a number of flagship projects, where capital funding has been agreed up to 2020-2021. This will provide the certainty needed to progress these important projects.
I am sure that a number of Members speaking today will undoubtedly disagree with this Budget.  That is their right as Members of this House.  There will always be differing opinions on Budget allocations.  That is true in times of prosperity as well as times of austerity.  There will always be those who are prepared to stand up and say what services should be funded.  There are not so many who are prepared to listen to the reality that we have finite resources and that extra funding for one thing means less funding for another or more taxes for everyone.  I, more than most, having come into this post in recent days, am aware of those particular issues.
Mr Speaker, this represents a balanced Budget with no overcommitment for the first time in many years.  That is an improvement on the situation in which our opponents and critics had us last year.  Although the outcome may prove challenging, it is better than previously anticipated.  Departments should also be well placed to meet these challenges as a result of the decisions already taken by the Executive on voluntary exit schemes and departmental restructuring.
To quote Jack Lew, the United States Secretary of the Treasury:
“The budget is not just a collection of numbers, but an expression of our values and aspirations”.
I hope that is what I have presented to this House today.
I commend this Budget to the Assembly.

Daithí McKay: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle.  At the outset, I should point out that, by convention, the Committee for Finance and Personnel normally undertakes a coordinated scrutiny of the draft Executive Budget.  On previous occasions, this has resulted in a cross-cutting report containing contributions from all the Assembly Statutory Committees and other stakeholders.  The purpose of this is to influence positive change and add value to this debate.  This has not, however, been possible on this occasion, due to the circumstances surrounding this Budget, which the previous Minister described as extremely challenging.  The normal consultation process has been set aside.
The Committee received a briefing from officials on the overall budgetary position but, due to the time constraints that applied, the briefing focused on process and outcome.  During the briefing, departmental officials explained that the construct of this Budget had been a unique exercise, with three distinct variables added to a very tight timescale.  Those included the political context of the Fresh Start Agreement, the lateness of the Treasury’s spending review and the challenge of planning the transfer of functions order to merge 12 Departments into nine.
Mindful of the time constraints, I pressed the departmental officials on the scope that exists for Assembly Committees to influence any changes to this draft Budget.  The officials helpfully pointed out that, despite the shortcomings in the process, it would still be possible for Committees to have influence.  This could be during the upcoming June monitoring process, when the new Ministers will have considerable flexibility to reallocate resources and capital within their specific departmental budgetary envelopes.
Several other cross-departmental issues were discussed during last week’s briefing from DFP.  These included what consideration has been given to revenue-raising measures and the need for robust action to avoid any year-end underspend exceeding the Budget exchange levels, especially in light of the absence of any overcommitment being carried into this Budget.  The officials emphasised how challenging the Department’s own budget allocation for 2016-17 will be.  Committee members were also keen to explore the implications of the voluntary exit scheme for DFP as a Department.  The Committee will be monitoring the practical outworkings of losing 10% of DFP staff, the implications for sick absence, the savings realisation in respect of space reduction and the implications of additional functions and associated staff being transferred from OFMDFM.
The draft memorandum of understanding (MOU) on the Budget process, which the Committee and the Department have been preparing jointly, should be moved forward apace.  It needs to be workable and it is long overdue for a number of reasons, which the Minister, as well as other Members, will understand.  I look forward to the Department engaging with the Committee with a view to seeing a finalised draft MOU being considered and agreed, by the Executive and the Assembly respectively, in time for the next Budget process.
Amongst the external factors that will need to be addressed is the impact that the timing of the Treasury’s spending reviews have on the Budget processes of the devolved Administrations.  I welcome the fact that the previous Finance Minister joined her counterparts in Scotland and Wales in raising that concern with the Treasury.  However, I believe that further influence will need to be brought to bear on this matter going forward.
I will now make a few comments from a party position.  As we face elections and the making-up of a new Assembly, we need to look forward not only to this financial year but to the next five years.  There are a number of challenges on which the Assembly and Executive have done well in terms of the deal that was put forward, but we need to ensure that we get a fair deal on corporation tax.  In the time ahead, the Executive also need to consider air passenger duty.  A number of stakeholders in that sector and in tourism noted their concerns about the fact that there is a differential across the island.  That has an effect; and we and the Executive recognised that when we addressed the issue of the long-haul rate in response to the decision around the New York route.
We need to look at how we can have a level playing field across the island when it comes to air passenger duty in order to ensure that Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport all get a good deal and that we can open new routes.  New routes into the North are not just about holidaymakers; they are also about economic growth and building business connections, because there is a dearth of connections, especially to Germany.  That is something that needs to be addressed as well as the transatlantic routes that the Executive have already dealt with.
On corporation tax, we need to have a strong position on the taxation benefits that will go to London as a result of any reduction in corporation tax to 12·5%, as has been mooted.  I believe that the principle has already been accepted by Treasury in regard to the Scottish Government that, if a taxation policy changes and there are additional revenues due to London, they have a duty to ensure that the devolved Administration are compensated to some extent.
Those are two major issues that I believe that the Executive and the incoming Minister will need to look at.
Due to the lack of time that I have, I will conclude. The fair deal that has been put forward — the Fresh Start Agreement — has been a good deal.  Others Members from my party will address these matters, but we now have a start ahead of us for the A5 and A6.  That is good for rural areas.  We will deliver infrastructure for all those rural commuters, and, of course, the A26 continues apace as well.  That is a great result for the city of Derry.  It is a great result for all those along that route.  I know that some parties will try to ignore that fact, but from what I can see in the Budget —

Colum Eastwood: Will the Member give way?

Daithí McKay: I have no time, unfortunately.  From what I see before us today, it is a good deal for those west of the Bann and for those in Donegal.  I will close on that point, and I look forward to the debate.

Mr Speaker: I gave a certain leeway to the Chairperson of the Committee. Other Members should not expect the same generosity.

Alex Easton: I rise to support the Budget and to speak on the Health aspect of it.  The Health budget has been increased to £4·88 billion, the highest ever allocation of funding for Health.  With an extra £226 million of capital expenditure for Health projects, this equates to £130 million of uplift or around 3%.  It is the best settlement of any Department, reflecting and recognising its priority status.  It also takes the Health budget to over half a billion pounds, nearly half of the entire Budget for Northern Ireland.  That does not mean that there are not problems ahead for our Health budget, as we face an ever bigger demand on our health services from the public.  The Health budget is not just about receiving more money; while welcome, in itself it does not resolve the pressures that we face.  We need to invest further in reducing waiting lists, and we have already seen a commitment to that, with around £40 million being allocated in the last monitoring round to tackle elective care and outpatient waiting lists. On waiting lists, it is worth remembering why there was an increase in waiting times: it was down to £120 million being handed back to Westminster in fines for not implementing welfare reform.  That is the truth of the matter.
We need to continue to reform and innovate to stay ahead, such as through Transforming Your Care.  That process needs to continue to be implemented, and I would like to see that happen at a faster pace.  We also need to ensure that funding for Transforming Your Care is in place to fully develop what is promised.  I also believe in invest to save, and I believe that more funding is needed to ensure that schemes such as electronic medical records are put in place to cut costs and save on bureaucracy.
The Department of Health has three main responsibilities: Health and Social Care, public health and public safety.  It is important that, on those three main responsibilities, everybody in the Assembly has the same aim as me: to build a world-class health and social care service for the people of Northern Ireland.  We need to drive up the quality of health and social care for patients, clients and carers; to improve outcomes; to safeguard the vulnerable; and to ensure that patients, clients and carers have the best possible experience in every aspect of their care and support.  That is what the people of Northern Ireland want, and that is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve.
There are key challenges ahead for Health for the 2016-17 period, with new drugs becoming available to treat medical conditions and an ever-increasing elderly population, which we all welcome but which brings added pressures and increased costs in delivering primary, secondary and social care services.  There are also increased pressures facing us. Cost pressures in the Health budget represent a 5% to 6% increase, largely down to pay and non-pay inflation and continued development in healthcare technologies and treatments.  There are ongoing challenges on our waiting lists.  In recognition of those challenges, the Executive have protected Health and Social Care through its Budget allocation for 2016-17.  However, the Department and its arm's-length body will have to identify savings in order to supplement the additional Budget allocations.
In the Budget, we will see £232 million for capital expenditure for health projects to implement a capital investment programme that helps to maintain and develop the health estate and other assets in support of service delivery and reform projects.  Money has been found by the Executive in joint investment programmes with Atlantic Philanthropies to deliver improved services for people with dementia and their carers.  We also see £16 million set aside for the Mother and Children's Hospital and £3·9 million to take forward Desertcreat as a flagship project.  We see the completion of the north-west regional cancer centre in Altnagelvin Hospital and two new primary care and community centres in Banbridge and Ballymena delivered by a DUP Minister.  There is also the continuation of the redevelopment of the Ulster Hospital and Altnagelvin Hospital.  The capital budget also gives important investment in ICT, medical equipment and the fleet and estates of the Ambulance Service and the Fire Service.  There is also a further £10 million in transaction capital allocations for further GP infrastructure.  Overall, we see a real-terms increase in funding for hospital, general medical, pharmaceutical, ophthalmology, health support, public health and paramedic services.
There are still many challenges ahead for Health.  However, with the forecast for the Northern Ireland economy to grow by 1·6%, corporation tax being devolved to Northern Ireland and the voluntary exit scheme, we will, hopefully, see the potential for more funding to become available from the Executive over the next year or two, which I would like to see going to Health. Finally, I pay tribute to our doctors, nurses and all our health staff, who do such a wonderful job across Northern Ireland.  We owe you a deep debt of gratitude, and we appreciate you all.  I support the Budget.

Claire Hanna: I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the SDLP on the Budget.  However, I do not really welcome the content of it, which, I think, limits the scope of the discussion.  Others have said that it is a Budget that lacks planning and serious analysis.  I know that nobody reads a document like this to be entertained, but it is turgid and lacks imagination and some of the finesse that devolution should have put onto it.
There is no doubt that Northern Ireland faces the biggest challenges at the moment: challenges to fix the economy and deliver for young people so that our brightest and best minds do not have to keep leaving in the numbers that they have in the past decade.  The challenge is to grow our economy and private sector to deliver the services that we need, but this Budget seems, in every sense, to have given up.  The challenges of 21st-century infrastructure and 21st-century jobs are just not addressed at any point in this lengthy document.
Northern Ireland has shown that we can overcome big challenges and fix big problems.  We have a strength, a resilience and an approach that we go around the world talking about, but none of that spirit of creativity, resilience and possibility is evident in this document.  It does not outline any serious initiative in the fight against poverty or educational underachievement or in harmonising our infrastructure with that of other jurisdictions.
While seeing fit to borrow nearly three quarters of a billion pounds to kill jobs through the Civil Service redundancy scheme, the best that Sinn Féin and the DUP seem to be able to do for resource spending, tourism, employment and skills and student support is a cut of £24 million. We are borrowing to kill off jobs and taking away millions from exactly the sort of fund that is designed to create the skills and improve the infrastructure to increase those jobs.  We have put a lot of eggs in the corporation tax basket, despite the fact that those rates are harmonising almost organically, and we are failing to learn the lesson that it is not just cutting corporation tax that will make the change; it is consistent investment in skills and infrastructure.
We have given up on any serious development of our infrastructure to make it fit for purpose.

Gordon Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way.  She has perplexed me slightly, because she said twice that there is not enough about investment in transport infrastructure.  It is very clear that the money for the A5 and A6 is of great benefit to the economy.  There are lots of other things.  She has drawn a very negative picture.  Surely she should be a little more cheerful at the start of a new year and see the good things in the document.

Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Claire Hanna: I thank the Member for his intervention, which I was happy to take, as I think that it is good practice.  I am glad that you brought up the A5.  Look at the detail.  The chronic underinvestment in education is now manifesting itself in the geography that is evident in this document.  We have these seven flagship projects identified, at a cost of just over £1 billion.  On my reading, there is £100 million up front for these costs:  we have shown how we are paying them in the first year, but it does not take an accountant to work out that the rest has not been filled in.
You talk about the Belfast to Derry road.  It is a dual carriageway from Randalstown to Crawfordsburn.  That is all it is.  Your ambition for the north-west extends to exactly 8·7 miles.  I do not think that is what people in the north-west are looking for from this Executive.  We have seen it all before.  I am sure that election pledges and leaflets are being designed for the north-west that talk about the road from Belfast to Derry, as they did in 2011.  People have heard it all before, and this Budget does not in any way fill in the blanks on how you are going to do it.

Daithí McKay: Will the Member give way?

Claire Hanna: No, I will not, because I have a few things to get through.  I have only got three minutes; maybe I will find the positives in your Budget in that time, but I do not think so.
There are other areas that they have given up on —

Daithí McKay: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.  The Member referred to the A6 from Randalstown to Crawfordsburn.  It is actually from Randalstown to Castledawson roundabout.  The Member would do well to read the document before passing comment on that piece of infrastructure.

Claire Hanna: Yes, as I say, the education cuts affect geography.  I am glad that you have conceded that that is, in fact, the length of your ambition for the much-heralded road from Belfast to Derry.
It is not just in infrastructure and in roads that the Budget has given up.  It has given up on the fight against criminality.  Before, prison officers in Northern Ireland lived in fear of being attacked in their homes; now they live in fear of being attacked in the very prisons where they work.  We have the infamy of Maghaberry being described as the worst prison ever inspected by the Chief Inspector of Prisons.  We rely on an effective policing service, but ours is taking a 2% cut, while still addressing a lot of the manifestations of the past which the Executive have failed to deal with over many years and after many opportunities.
We rely on a strong and efficient court system, through which people can see their case progressing.  However, on Monday of this week, 871 cases were awaiting trial in the courts.  That is 871 victims who have not had the opportunity to access justice and have the anxiety of waiting for their case to go through, and that is happening while courthouses across the North are earmarked for closure.
Most disappointingly, as well as justice and roads, you appear to have given up on children and young people.  The Budget has a reduction in spending on youth services — a drop of 5·4% — and what looks like a tiny increase in resource spending for schools themselves.  We do not even have a figure in the Budget for capital spending on youth and children's services next year.  I cannot imagine a Budget that not only does not appear to invest in our children and young people but does not have any indication of what we are going to build for them in the lifetime of the Budget.  The childcare provision outlined, at 12·5 hours per week, falls behind the commitment announced by the Conservatives.  It is a bad state of affairs when David Cameron is looking after working families better than this Budget.  Is that the best we can do?
We are asked to support a Budget that appears to have given up, designed by First Ministers who have given in.  They have basically taken by rote what has come across from the Treasury; there is no influence, or no obvious influence, of devolution in what we have added.  There is no imagination.  We have a new First Minister, and I am glad to see that, but collectively the First and deputy First Ministers, as the longest-serving Ministers in Stormont history, do not have very much to show for it and appear to have lost their fight already.
There are alternatives.  HS2 across the water will have a Barnett consequential of £600 million coming our way in the next mandate.   We could use that to improve infrastructure but, on the evidence of this Budget, we cannot be very confident that we will.
The Northern Ireland investment fund of £100 million will not be available until the end of 2016.  We want to be confident that that will be focused on social and economic good.  The reinvestment and reform initiative, which was an SDLP initiative, is being treated like a credit card; it is being maxed out on borrowing.  It was envisaged to be spent on infrastructure, and that is not happening.
We will not be supporting this Budget.  We are not ready to give up and give in.  I do not think that people would appreciate it if we did that on their behalf.

Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm.  I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.  The first item of business when we return will be Question Time.  Mr Leslie Cree will be the next Member to speak when we return to this debate after Question Time.
The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Beggs] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Employment and Learning

STEM Uptake

Peter Weir: 1. Mr Weir asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the initiatives being considered to increase the number of college and university students studying science, technology, engineering and maths. (AQO 9405/11-16)

Stephen Farry: STEM subjects are and will continue to be essential to our economy.  That has recently been verified by the skills barometer, which identifies a strong demand for mid- and higher-level skills in STEM subjects.  My Department is funding a number of approaches to raise the profile of and create opportunities for STEM study and careers; for example, through STEM supplements in local newspapers and career booklets across a range of STEM sectors.
I am pleased to say that, after the success of its inaugural year in 2015, I have agreed to extend my Department's sponsorship of the Northern Ireland Science Festival over the next four years.  My Department has also supported a report by the STEM business group called 'Addressing Gender Balance — Reaping the Gender Dividend in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)', which contains a number of good-practice guidelines aimed at addressing the gender gap in STEM subjects and careers.  Over this Assembly term, I have supported over 1,400 additional STEM undergraduate places at our colleges and universities.
As part of the Budget preparation process for 2016-17, I submitted bids for the resources required to meet our skill shortages under a reduced rate of corporation tax.  Looking ahead, there will continue to be enhanced funding for the majority of STEM subjects delivered at our colleges and universities, and I will continue to support them in rebalancing their subject provision towards economically relevant subjects.  I will also continue with the implementation of our apprenticeship strategy through the funding of additional higher-level apprenticeship pilots in areas of economic relevance.

Peter Weir: I thank the Minister for his response, and I welcome the initiatives that are taking place.  One of the weaknesses at times is the lack of realisation of the careers availability in STEM subjects and the disjoint with careers advice.  Will the Minister outline any initiatives that are taking place to ensure that we upskill our careers advisers in schools to ensure that there is greater awareness of the opportunities for careers in STEM subjects?

Stephen Farry: I thank the Member for his comments and his question.  Given his role as Chair of the Education Committee, he will be aware that careers spans my Department and the Department of Education.  My Committee conducted an inquiry during this Assembly term.  More recently, we have had our own review of the careers strategy.  We have an implementation plan across the two Departments.  Shortly, we hope to publish the formal strategy for careers over the next five years.  That is being finalised across the two Departments.  I am sure that, as my Committee holds me to account in that respect, the Member will do likewise with his Minister.

Robin Swann: In regard to numbers, especially the numbers going into colleges to study STEM subjects in higher education, has the Minister looked at increasing the maximum student number (MaSN) cap for HE colleges?

Stephen Farry: The difficulty with raising the MaSN cap is that we do not have the resource in that regard.  Obviously, that is something that we would like to see, and it should be considered in future Budgets of the Executive.  In our current provision, we have had a rebalancing of the offer over the past number of years in the direction of STEM, particularly in what we term "narrow STEM", which are the maths, physics and computer science subjects.  As we have wrestled with some budget cuts over the past number of years, we have worked with the colleges and universities to protect those narrow STEM subjects from the cuts that have happened elsewhere.

Bronwyn McGahan: Go raibh maith agat.  I thank the Minister for his responses so far.  I ask him for an update on his efforts to attract more females to study STEM subjects and take up employment in that sector.

Stephen Farry: I thank the Member for the question.  That will be the subject of some questions further on.  In my answer, I alluded to work that we are undertaking in promotional activity through a number of projects.  We work closely with the Equality Commission in that regard.  It remains a structural difficulty in our economy.  While we have strong participation rates in further education and higher education across both genders, with women more represented than men, we still see significant segmentation in the choices that people make. Some may argue that that does not really matter and that people have different preferences, but it matters when we look to the areas of the economy that are set to grow the most over the coming years.  Unless we fully utilise the talent base in Northern Ireland in terms of the pipeline of skills going into those areas, we will not live up to our full potential.  There is a real importance in ensuring that we have the proper balance.  It is important that we encourage all people to influence others to think, particularly at an early age, about a range of careers and that we try to tackle some of the stereotypes that may have channelled people in different directions.

Gerard Diver: I thank the Minister for the information so far on STEM.  How much of the extra £5 million allocated to apprenticeships in the 2016-17 Budget will be used for STEM?

Stephen Farry: It is not just a case of how much of that £5 million will be allocated to apprenticeships; that is part of a much bigger pot.  The Member will be aware that, this morning, the Finance Minister indicated that another £20 million would be available for skills in the future Department for the Economy through the Budget exchange scheme.  All of that goes into a pot to support skills, and it includes higher education, universities, mainstream further education and apprenticeships.  One thing that I am seeking to do, in working out with Jonathan Bell the budget for the new Department for the Economy is to ensure that we have a dedicated mainstream budget for the new higher-level apprenticeships.  Previously, that has been funded through the change fund, which was not baselined.  Therefore, it is important that we now move ahead with a proper budget for apprenticeships baselined for the future Department, and we are doing that.  Obviously, the £5 million will be an aspect of ensuring that we can achieve that.

Leading the City to Work

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: 2. Mr Ó Muilleoir asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for his assessment of the Leading the City to Work initiative by Belfast Metropolitan College. (AQO 9406/11-16)

Stephen Farry: Belfast Met's Leading the City to Work initiative is the college's commitment to working in partnership with stakeholders to transform lives and to contribute to the economic and social success of Belfast and Northern Ireland.  The initiative reflects the further education sector's challenging dual role, which was set out recently in the further education strategy, Further Education Means Success, in which colleges are pivotal to the development of a strong, vibrant economy through the provision of professional and technical skills, as well as having the responsibility of helping fight poverty and supporting social inclusion. Increasingly, colleges will work collaboratively and in partnership with other organisations in the public, private, and voluntary and community sectors to deliver their services to learners, employers and communities to maximum effect.
Working alongside Belfast City Council, the college has delivered the Achieve programme, encouraging young people to participate in STEM-focused FE programmes and SME support programmes, including Generate, which is focused on supply chain opportunities in the renewables sector, and Super Connected, which provides support to access high-grade broadband connectivity. The college is one of the lead partners, alongside the council, in the Springvale multi-agency group, has an increased involvement in the design and delivery of learning solutions in, for example, the Girdwood community hub and works on the Urban Villages programme to better understand and target specific pockets of educational disadvantage.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Mar is gnách, a LeasCheann Comhairle, gabhaim buíochas leat agus leis an Aire as an fhreagra chuimsitheach sin.  I thank the Minister for a comprehensive response.  I know that he has done groundbreaking work with Belfast City Council and Belfast Met on the Leading the City to Work programme and the E3 campus.
Given that the work that the Belfast Met carries out is often with those who are on the margins and those who perhaps did not have other education opportunities, given the fact that there are 20,000 students there and given the fact that Marie-Thérèse McGivern and her team have devoted themselves to making sure that Belfast Met is central to the education story of the city —

Roy Beggs: Will the Member come to his question, please?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: It is 110 years since Belfast Met was established.  Will you look at finding a way this year — you have only a few weeks left, or maybe you will be back in a bigger post — to mark and celebrate its contribution to the city and all our successes over that period?

Stephen Farry: I thank the Member for his comments and assure him that my current post is big enough.  I am not too sure what he is alluding to.
In so far as the Member was asking a question, I agree with his comments about the important partnerships that have been built between Belfast Met and the city council.  It is important that we celebrate the contribution of Belfast Met.  Of course, the current college is not 110 years old; it is of a much more recent vintage.  Many of its predecessors go back to the turn of the last century, so it has a long and illustrious history of supporting vocational and technical professional education in the city of Belfast.  When we look at how we are advancing the economy today, many of us, including the Member, make allusions to the Belfast of the turn of the last century and how it was a world economic powerhouse.  In many sectors, it was world-leading.  It was not just close to the top but at the very top.  In many ways, that inspires us to achieve the vision that we have for the future of Northern Ireland to be one of the best regions in the world and one of the top performers in sectors in which we have comparative strengths.

Skills Barometer

Raymond McCartney: 3. Mr McCartney asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the skills barometer. (AQO 9407/11-16)

Stephen Farry: The skills barometer was launched on 12 November 2015 at, strangely enough, Belfast Met and is the result of work that the Ulster University economic policy centre completed on behalf of my Department.  Skills mismatches are often cited as a key barrier to economic growth.  I was, therefore, keen to ensure that the Department and the wider Executive had the most robust and up-to-date information on skills requirements, thereby enabling policymakers and educationalists to make informed choices about the allocation of funds and initiatives.
The skills barometer is innovative, groundbreaking and something that we should be very proud of.  It provides a detailed understanding of the skills requirements of our economy up to 2025, with forecasts of supply and demand.  Importantly, the barometer provides the Department with a level of detail and sophistication that no other macroeconomic model has been able to provide.  A key feature is its flexibility as a policymaking tool that can be adjusted to take account of changes in order to understand the skills implications of different policy measures.
The results indicate that, under the higher economic growth that accompanies a lower rate of corporation tax, there will be a significant undersupply of skills in the economy as a whole.  Extra investment in skills is required to meet the shortfall, and the barometer estimates the size of this requirement.  The results indicate a strong need for people with intermediate and graduate-level skills, particularly in science, technology, engineering and maths-related subjects, reflecting the anticipated growth in ICT, professional services and advanced manufacturing.
The barometer will be updated annually to ensure that forecasts are based on the latest data.  However, there is the ability to update it more frequently to take account of any unforeseen circumstances.

Raymond McCartney: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.  I thank the Minister for a very comprehensive and good overview of the skills barometer.  He identified that, perhaps in a strange way, the report found an oversupply and an undersupply of skills.  Will he outline the steps that the Department is taking to address both scenarios?

Stephen Farry: There are probably fairly few areas in which there is an over-provision at present.  It might be the case with particular university subjects — there are some broader areas.  I would say with a degree of hesitation — I am not particularly looking to open up another debate — that teaching is one area in which there is an oversupply at present.  There are clear pressure points in science and technology and in nursing.  It is interesting to note that one of the top five areas is manufacturing, despite a lot of bad news over the past number of months about redundancies.  That reinforces the point that Northern Ireland still has a very strong future in manufacturing.  Indeed, there are future pressure points.  We estimate growth in manufacturing over the coming years.
I stress to the Member the importance of ensuring that we have sufficient investment in skills to meet the demands.  I want to put on record my appreciation to the Finance Minister for providing an additional resource for skills for the future Department for the Economy.  That will make some difference.  However, I also want to stress that there is a very long way to go in ensuring that we have a sufficiently strong skills base and skills pipeline to ensure that we meet the full demands of the economy, particularly in the context of a lower level of corporation tax.

Chris Lyttle: Will the Minister update the House on the work of the financial services academy to provide people with the skills necessary to gain employment in the growing financial services sector?  How many jobs has his Assured Skills programme managed to deliver?

Stephen Farry: First, with Assured Skills generally, my Department, as Members know, works in conjunction with Invest Northern Ireland on its programmes.  Obviously, skills are a key component in how we attract and sustain investment in Northern Ireland, so it is important that we have that skills narrative and, more importantly, that we have the tools to respond effectively and provide the particular skills that investing companies require.  We can put in place a number of particular programmes for companies and for sectors.  In that regard, we have rolled out a number of academies over the past number of years.  Having started by focusing on ICT, the academies are spreading to different ranges of activity.  Indeed, the area of financial services is one that we are doing some work on currently.  Overall, we have supported the creation of several thousand jobs across Northern Ireland through Assured Skills over the past number of years, and the Assured Skills programme will come into its own in the context of the lower rate of corporation tax.

Patsy McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  Mo bhuíochas leis an Aire.  I thank the Minister for his answer.  Will he clarify the way in which the skills barometer and associated data is shared with businesses?

Stephen Farry: The Member makes an important point.  The skills barometer is not simply a tool for government.  However, I stress, in that context, that evidence-based policymaking is critical, and we now have a very strong skills evidence base.  The barometer is also there to be used by businesses and, indeed, by students, parents and other stakeholders in society when they are planning for the future.  It is available for businesses in how they can relate to where emerging skilling requirements will be in the economy.  I also highlight the importance of young people using the skills barometer as part of their careers engagement to see where opportunities lie.  People will have their own interests and passions, but it is important that young people make informed choices.  We want to try to encourage as many young people as possible to build their futures in Northern Ireland and, in doing so, to study in the areas that will be most relevant to the future of the economy.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson: Thank you, Minister, for your responses to date.  Are you convinced that the new proposed Department for the Economy will recognise the benefits of, and utilise, the skills barometer?

Stephen Farry: I have no reason to doubt that that will be the case.  The creation of the new Department for the Economy is a very sensible measure.  Indeed, it has been supported by virtually every party in the House, including the Member's party.  It is important that we bring all the different levers and programmes that support our economy under one roof.  While there is some very strong cooperation between my Department and DETI and Invest Northern Ireland at present, you will always get a certain lack of synergy from having separate Departments and separate Ministers.  There should be an improvement through everything coming under one Minister and one Department.
Obviously, skills will be at the heart of our future economic model, no matter what way you look at it, and it is important that we have evidence-based policymaking, as I stressed when I responded to the previous question.  The skills barometer provides that.  We have had great interest in the skills barometer from a wide range of stakeholders and, indeed, from other Departments.  The message is very clear and understood, not just across the Northern Ireland Civil Service but across our civic society as a whole.

Claire Sugden: How have the FE colleges and the two universities responded to the skills barometer in providing skills identified?

Stephen Farry: The colleges and universities are using the skills barometer to plan future provision, and that will play an increasing role as we look ahead, particularly in the context of tight and scarce resources.  It is important that all our education and training suppliers are using their resources as smartly as they possibly can.  As I said previously during Question Time, we have already seen a rebalancing of the offering in our colleges and universities, and that is set to continue as we look ahead.  Universities serve a broader role than simply being the providers of graduates for particular jobs.  They have a much wider function in supporting civic society and supporting learning and knowledge, but it is important that they appreciate their role in supporting the economy and that they seek to maximise provision in that direction.

Employment Tribunals: Legal Advice

Conor Murphy: 4. Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for his assessment of the availability of personal legal advice and assistance for people involved in employment tribunals. (AQO 9408/11-16)

Stephen Farry: My Department funds the Law Centre Northern Ireland to provide access to legal advice and representation on employment matters.  The project provides specialist professional advice and advocacy through to the industrial tribunal process free of charge to those who otherwise would find it difficult to secure access to justice.  That support is provided across Northern Ireland and is focused on the most vulnerable employees.
Employment tribunals seek to ensure at all times that the principles of the justice system are adhered to in all cases that come before them.  Allowances are made for inexperienced individuals who represent themselves.  This is done to ensure that the tribunals' overriding objective, namely that parties are on an equal footing, is preserved.
The Department also funds the Labour Relations Agency to offer conciliation before or during tribunal proceedings.
While the process does not include directive advice, it can provide parties with the information and assistance that they need to help them to resolve outstanding issues.  The Employment Bill will extend that process so that most people facing a tribunal claim will have the offer of early conciliation before lodging a tribunal claim.

Conor Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer.  He states that the advice is available across the North, but he will understand that the Law Centre, which does excellent work in this regard, is based in Belfast and Derry, and that leaves a substantial hinterland in which it is more difficult to access that type of personal legal advice and assistance.  I am sure that he will acknowledge that a lack of that is a key access-to-justice issue.  Has he plans or are there opportunities in his Department to further resource that provision of assistance to make sure that as many people as possible can avail themselves of it across the Six Counties?

Stephen Farry: I would not want to rule out additional resource at this stage, but it is important to bear in mind the context of what we face with the resourcing of employment law interventions in general.  The Department has a tight budget, and we face budget cuts, and that includes the regulatory services under which employment relations fall.
I interested in and take on board the Member's comments and may engage with the Law Centre to see whether it is picking up subregional disparities in access and whether there is a problem.  If we are not adhering fully to equality of access across Northern Ireland, we will seek to address that.
It is important that Members are aware that, on the back of the creation of the revised early conciliation service under the Labour Relations Agency (LRA), which is part of the Employment Bill, there will be additional pressures in relation to the LRA itself.  So we have to find additional resource to ensure that we can fully support what should be more efficient and effective interventions for employers and employees that, where possible, will avoid the much more confrontational engagement that you find in a tribunal.

John Dallat: I thank the Minister for his answer.  Would he agree that it might be advantageous to make industrial tribunals more friendly to the public?  Take them as far away as possible from the gowns, wigs, oaths and all the trappings of those big courts that scare the life out of people.  What is being done to make industrial tribunals friendly to ordinary people, who, perhaps, would not need a battery of legal support if tribunals were doing what they were originally supposed to do?

Stephen Farry: I thank the Member for his question; it opens up a far-reaching debate in many respects.  Tribunals are a legal process.  While the original intent was that people would not go there with batteries of lawyers on either side, that is their entitlement in a legal process and things have moved in that direction, although not every employee or employer will choose to have legal representation or be able to afford it.
The process in tribunals is not that of a court; it is that of a tribunal.  What we are now terming employment judges, and indeed the panels, are keen to ensure that they can dispense business in an efficient and effective manner.  It is worth putting on record our appreciation of the great strides made in recent years on case management to ensure that cases progress efficiently.
It is important to recognise that we are trying to move as many cases as possible outside the tribunal process and have them addressed through different forms of alternative dispute resolution, which is in the interests of employees and employers.  Ultimately, there will be cases that need to go to a tribunal, and it is people's right to take a case to a tribunal.  Where possible, however, we want to avail ourselves of more cost-efficient and effective interventions at an earlier stage.

Roy Beggs: Thomas Buchanan is not in his place.  I call Leslie Cree.

Teacher Training: Cost

Leslie Cree: 6. Mr Cree asked the Minister for Employment and Learning to outline the cost of training a teacher. (AQO 9410/11-16)

Stephen Farry: My Department is responsible for funding initial teacher education training.  The Education Minister is responsible for early and continuing professional development and determining the number of teachers to be trained each year.
The Grant Thornton report, which I commissioned as part of a two-stage review into initial teacher education, analysed the cost of teacher training in our universities and university colleges against comparators in the United Kingdom.  The findings at that time were that the cost of teacher training here was significantly more than in the comparator institutions and significantly higher in the university colleges than the universities.  Students undertaking a course in initial teacher education here can complete either a one-year PGCE or a four-year Bachelor of Education degree.
At Queen's and Ulster universities, which deliver the postgraduate certificate, my Department currently funds at a rate of just over £4,000 per student while, at Stranmillis University College and St Mary's University College, which deliver both the postgraduate certificate and the Bachelor of Education degree, my Department currently funds at £5,380 per student per annum.  All courses attract a student fee of £3,805.  The variance between the universities and university colleges is due to the additional premia paid in respect of their status as small and specialist institutions.  In reality, it is primarily paid to ensure their sustainability.
Members will be aware that I proposed the removal of the premia as part of my Department's 2015-16 budget.  I do not believe that we can afford such an inefficiency.  As I have highlighted before, it is bizarre that it costs more to train a teacher here, when we have too many, than an engineer, of which we have too few.  We have to get our priorities straight, and the 'Aspiring to Excellence' report proposes several options that would be more efficient and would also improve quality.

Leslie Cree: I thank the Minister for his reply.  We all recognise that teaching is a fine and valuable profession, but the Minister will be aware of figures produced by the General Teaching Council that state that 23% of recent teaching graduates obtained work in Northern Ireland.  The rest of them went elsewhere.  Why, when budgets are so tight, are we continuing to produce so many teachers to export elsewhere when, as you said, we need engineering and medical graduates here?  Have the Executive discussed why the statistical-based teacher-demand model — that is quite a mouthful — is being topped up each year?

Stephen Farry: I am grateful for the Member's supplementary question.  Again, it opens a whole range of different issues.  The Member and the Assembly will be aware that the teacher-demand model is run by the Department of Education.  As I alluded to at the start of my answer, the Department of Education and, indeed, the Minister set the numbers for entry.  I have, on many occasions, stated my opinion that those figures are unrealistically high and that we are simply training too many teachers.  At times, we are artificially training too many teachers in order to ensure the sustainability of the teacher training colleges rather than promoting an agenda of reform towards, in my view, what should be a single teacher education system for Northern Ireland.
The teacher-demand model, in terms of the Executive, is something that I cannot directly comment upon but, obviously, Members will be aware that, last year, I did propose the removal of the premia that is paid to the teacher training colleges.  I think that virtually every other party in the Assembly took a different view on the matter and felt that that was a more worthy expenditure of resource than directly investing in our other colleges and universities to support the particular skills requirements that we need to address in our society.

Chris Lyttle: There are a number of important factors in relation to teacher training, including economics and public finance.  Does the Minister think that it is fair to the dreams of the individual who sorely wants to teach in Northern Ireland that we are training far too many teachers in Northern Ireland?

Stephen Farry: I fully respect that people will want to pursue their passion and that people will have a passion for teaching.  We will always have some replacement demand for teachers in our society so there will always be some opportunities in the system but, yet again, we are simply training too many teachers.  It is important that anyone who does go into teacher training is realistic about that.  Indeed, the skills barometer pointed out those figures very clearly for us.
The Member also alluded to other factors.  As we look to the idea of a different system in Northern Ireland, it is not simply an issue about cost; it is also about how we should aspire to train our teachers together.  We talk about shared and integrated education but, if we cannot get our teachers trained side by side, it will be very hard for us to credibly promote changes in how we teach our children together.  It is also quite clear that, the more that we link our teacher training into the context of the university setting, with that access to high-quality research and that multidisciplinary framework, the further we will also improve the quality of the future provision of our teachers.  That is also very much in the interests of the children of Northern Ireland.

Roy Beggs: That is the end of our time for listed questions.  We now move to topical questions, and I call Bronwyn McGahan.  I call Bronwyn McGahan.

Bronwyn McGahan: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker; you will have to pass me.

Roy Beggs: OK.  We will move on.

Southern Regional College:  Armagh Campus

Cathal Boylan: T2. Mr Boylan asked the Minister for Employment and Learning for an update on the Armagh campus of the Southern Regional College. (AQT 3342/11-16)

Stephen Farry: All the campuses of the Southern Regional College are moving ahead.  At this stage, we are looking to contract for the design issues.  Obviously, there are three colleges in question — Armagh, Banbridge and the new build in Craigavon to will replace those in Lurgan and Portadown.  I stress that, while good work has been done and this should be a priority for the Department, we are still dependent on finance being identified for future capital bids.  Work has been undertaken to ensure that we can proceed as quickly as we can when money becomes available.

Cathal Boylan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I welcome the Minister's answer.  What is his Department doing in conjunction with the Southern Regional College to make apprenticeships more accessible to enhance our skill set?

Stephen Farry: Southern Regional College has shown great leadership on higher-level apprenticeships and has taken advantage of funding opportunities under the change fund in this current financial year.  As I mentioned to Mr Diver, we are hoping to have that mainstreamed in future budgets under the Department of the Economy.
It has been very proactive in working with local businesses, and I highlight the work that it has done with Norbrook in Newry, which clearly has requirements for lab technicians.  That was pioneering work on higher-level apprenticeships in the life sciences.  It has also been very proactive on accountancy apprenticeships, as well as in ICT and engineering.  Those are the things that are happening across the board in some of our other colleges.

Apprenticeship Levy:  Benefits

Alban Maginness: T3. Mr A Maginness asked the Minister for Employment and Learning, given the apprenticeship levy that has been introduced by the British Government at Westminster, to clarify the actual benefit that there might be for industry and potential workers here in Northern Ireland. (AQT 3343/11-16)

Stephen Farry: I thank the Member for his question.  In the spirit of what you would term, "topical questions", that is extremely topical, given that I was in Dublin yesterday meeting my Scottish and Welsh counterparts to discuss the apprenticeship levy and how we are going to approach meetings with Nick Boles, the UK Skills Minister, in early February on the needs of the devolved regions to ensure that what comes forward works for our particular context.  It is, indeed, somewhat ironic that the three of us went to Dublin to talk about such matters, but that seemed to be the most convenient location.  We have some very deep concerns about what is being proposed and what has emerged to date.  We do not think that it has been entirely thought through.  Indeed, as with many decisions taken by UK Governments, particularly the current one, the interests of the devolved regions are often an afterthought. 
In England they have a very clear agenda on the number of apprenticeships, and they have an artificial target of three million.  They are essentially badging anything that is remotely associated with training as an apprenticeship.  At least the three devolved regions have their own different apprenticeship strategies, which are much more clearly focused on quality and establishing brands.  There are potential difficulties, in that a number of our local companies would end up bearing the levy at a rate in excess of their ability to train in conjunction with our local apprenticeship strategies and, indeed, our youth training strategy.  That will create a source of tension.  In turn, it is unclear how we are going to see support for SMEs, which will not pay the levy because they are too small to meet the criteria.  It is also proposed that it be levied against the public sector, which will be an interesting challenge for all of us.  At this stage, it is the intention of the three devolved regions to formulate a common position and to make representations, first, to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and, in due course, to encourage our respective Finance Ministers to have similar discussions with Her Majesty's Treasury to ensure that we can seek to ameliorate the worst aspects of the apprenticeship levy and that what is proposed works in the interests of devolution.

Roy Beggs: I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

Stephen Farry: Sorry.

Alban Maginness: I thank the Minister for a very interesting reply.  It is one of the ironies of Anglo-Irish relationships that the meeting of the triple alliance took place in Dublin.  Long may that continue, and long may the Minister continue to attend such meetings and encourage such a triple alliance.
The Minister pointed out the difficulties and the unintended consequences of the levy, particularly in the public sector, but there must be great added value with the levy.  Will he outline how that might affect us here in a beneficial manner?

Stephen Farry: In theory, the levy sounds like a good idea in that it adds value and is associated with training.  The difficulty is that it is essentially coming across as a tax on business.  A particular difficulty is that it will not be added value.  It is likely that, on the back of the proceeds of the levy, the Treasury will cut the budget of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.  That will see a negative Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland, alongside Scotland and Wales.  You could argue that we will get the same amount of money back from the levy, but there will be significant administration fees, so a lot of resource will leak out of the system.  We see something coming through that is complicated, of very little benefit, and it probably has potential costs.  While it is important that we highlight the importance of investment in skills, what was a good idea on paper is turning out to be a bit of a nightmare.  We will need to have a very difficult engagement with the UK Government on the issue.
That is not the only area where we see such difficulties.  We have also seen difficulties in the higher education Green Paper, which is about suiting the interests of higher education in England and goes off on a tangent from the direction of travel in the three devolved regions.  There are also other knock-on implications for us.

Roy Beggs: Pat Sheehan is not in his place.

Maintenance Grant:  Retention

Cathal Ó hOisín: T5. Mr Ó hOisín asked the Minister for Employment and Learning whether he will commit to retaining the maintenance grant for students here. (AQT 3345/11-16)

Stephen Farry: I am happy to assure the Member that I have done so.  The maintenance grant is not under threat on my watch, and, to be fair to others, I do not think that it will be under threat in any future Assembly.  We understand the importance of supporting widening access to higher education, and the maintenance grant goes a long way in that regard.  Obviously, what is happening in England is proceeding in a rather underhand way and is creating tensions at a political level.  It will be important, especially if we see a negative Barnett consequential.  That outcome is as yet far from clear, because we are not entirely clear whether the maintenance grant is being scored as a spending provision or a tax provision by the Treasury.  If we see a negative Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland, I expect that the Executive will absorb that collectively, and we will continue to support access to higher education, particularly for the most disadvantaged students.

Cathal Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin.  I thank the Minister for his answer.  Does he accept that maintenance grants are a critical component of his Department's widening participation strategy?

Stephen Farry: Yes — very much so.  They are also a very significant resource commitment.  We are talking about a figure in the region of £70 million a year.  Unlike tuition fee support, which is resourced through annually managed expenditure moneys and is not part of our block grant, maintenance grants come directly out of our block grant.
It is a major commitment, but it is certainly worthwhile.  It is important that we fully mobilise all the talent in our society if we are to have a successful economy.

Training Restrictions:  European Social Fund

William Humphrey: T6. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister for Employment and Learning, in light of conversations he has had with training providers and practitioners in north Belfast and greater Shankill, whether he will consider reviewing the policy on the current restriction on level 1 training funded by the European social fund. (AQT 3346/11-16)

Stephen Farry: First of all, that is not currently viable because we have an operational programme agreed by the European Commission, and we have programmes funded under that premise in the current phase of the European social fund (ESF).  It is also worth stressing to the Member that there is a rationale for the decision that we have taken in the context of a squeeze on budgets.  We are trying to ensure that we reduce duplication as much as possible.  We recognise that the community and voluntary sector has a comparative advantage, in particular around level 1, and, in that regard, we are trying to focus their efforts when accessing the European social fund in that direction.  They are part of a wider system, and it is important that they link with progression routes that are offered in further education, higher education and employment, so that we have the ability for people to move on from that crucial first rung on the ladder to ensure that they attain the skill requirements that the modern economy requires.

William Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his answer, although I am disappointed by it.  I have had conversations with those providers on the practicalities of delivering and positively changing lives, and I do not think that is being maximised.  I urge the Minister to consider a review of it as we come up to April and the annual review, and I extend to the Minister a warm invitation to visit Impact Training, Shankill Job Assist and Shankill Women's Centre, where he can hear at first hand the concerns and views of people on the ground.

Stephen Farry: As the Member will be aware, I have visited in the past and had a very enjoyable engagement with a number of people in that regard.  A review will not be within our discretion, considering where we are with the programme, but we seek to engage with all the providers.  There is a forum through which my Department engages bimonthly with all the ESF providers.  Indeed, the most recent meeting occurred, I think, on last Wednesday or Thursday. Those issues are being discussed on an ongoing basis and will continue to be.

Student Support Payments

Megan Fearon: T7. Ms Fearon asked the Minister for Employment and Learning when he will bring forward changes to the way in which students receive their student support payments. (AQT 3347/11-16)

Stephen Farry: At this stage, it is difficult to put a timeline on that.  We are having difficulties with the Student Loans Company, and the Member may have been listening to the comments that I made to Alban Maginness recently.  One of the other difficulties that we have with the UK Government is that they have overburdened the Student Loans Company with changes to student support. We are being advised that the 2017-18 academic year will be the first year in which we can introduce such changes.
The Member will be aware that we have carried out consultation on the frequency of student support.  In principle, we can change our frequency of payments, but there will be a cost, and it will be a six-figure sum. The issue is whether Members are prepared to divert resources from other aspects of higher education to see more frequent student support.  I leave that as an open question, but that, in turn, will potentially put pressure on actual student places, and some people may miss out on higher education as a consequence. A choice has to be made.  I am open to that debate, but I rather suspect that it will fall to a future Minister to make that decision.  That is the timeline around which a decision can be taken in that regard.

Megan Fearon: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I thank the Minister for his answer, although I do not accept that it is a toss-up between places and the way in which we change student support payments.  Does he agree with me that the current system, whereby three payments are made over the course of the year, is not the best way forward?

Stephen Farry: We have had the consultation, and I have an open mind to change. Powerful arguments for change were made by a number of stakeholders, so, all things being equal, we will probably want to have that move, but I stress again to the Member the issue of cost.  Indeed, although extra money can be brought into higher education from elsewhere, whether from my departmental budget or the Executive's Budget, it is worth pointing out that we have major structural deficits in higher education.  We still fund too few students in Northern Ireland. We have other priorities.  It is not simply a case of protecting what we have versus investment in more frequent payments; we also have to look at investing in more student places. We send too many people away from Northern Ireland owing to a lack of options here.  All of that has to be taken in the round, but it is something that can be done. The policy work is there, so a decision can be taken if someone is minded to do so.

Roy Beggs: That is the end of the time allocated for questions to the Minister for Employment and Learning.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Roy Beggs: I advise Members that question 2 has been withdrawn.

Edenderry Nursery School

William Humphrey: 1. Mr Humphrey asked the Minister of Education for a start date for the construction of the new Edenderry Nursery School at Lanark Way, Belfast. (AQO 9420/11-16)

John O'Dowd: On the basis of the information currently available to me, the start date for construction of the new Edenderry Nursery School is likely to be March 2016, with a six-month contract period.  The project will deliver a new double-unit nursery school for 52 pupils on a new site at the junction of Lanark Way and Mayo Link, which is in the vicinity of the existing school.  Construction work will be taken forward under the Belfast strategic partnership agreement between the Education Authority and the strategic partner, Amey FMP.
A supporting business case for the project has been approved, and the purchase of the new site is complete.  The total cost of the project, including lands, is in the region of £1·2million.  The existing Edenderry Nursery School is located in the grounds of Glenwood Primary School.  Therefore, the delivery of the project not only provides much-needed additional space for both schools but provides the new Edenderry Nursery School with new accommodation on a separate site and its own identity, which will allow it to forge stronger cross-community links due to its location.

William Humphrey: I thank the Minister for his answer.  My colleague Brian Kingston and I had a meeting with the chief executive of the Education Authority on Friday, and she confirmed that.  I thank the Minister for the announcement of the investment in the area.
The Minister mentioned that this will free up space in Glenwood Primary School.  He knows that I have raised that issue with him before.  Will he advise the House when work might start on the extension and refurbishment of Glenwood Primary School?  It is the hub school for the greater Shankill area, and the work is much needed, as the Minister will know.  In the view of the governors, teachers, local politicians and, of course, parents —

Roy Beggs: The Member has asked his question.

William Humphrey: — it is important that the school should be on the current site.

John O'Dowd: I do not have the details for Glenwood Primary School in front of me, but I am happy to forward more information to the Member.  He will know that I am acutely aware of the issues in and around the area after a development proposal was received and after discussions with local community representatives and schools about how we strategically plan education provision there.  I am delighted to have moved on with the Edenderry Nursery School project, and I hope to be in a position to move on with other projects in the area as soon as possible.

Investing in the Teaching Workforce

Claire Hanna: 3. Ms Hanna asked the Minister of Education for his assessment of how the Investing in the Teaching Workforce scheme will impact on those teachers who graduated before 2013-14, including their ability to obtain a permanent post. (AQO 9422/11-16)

Alastair Ross: 4. Mr Ross asked the Minister of Education how many new teaching opportunities he plans to create through the Investing in the Teaching Workforce scheme. (AQO 9423/11-16)

Robin Swann: 7. Mr Swann asked the Minister of Education how many teaching positions will become available through the Investing in the Teaching Workforce scheme. (AQO 9426/11-16)

Trevor Lunn: 8. Mr Lunn asked the Minister of Education, in relation to the Investing in the Teaching Workforce scheme, whether he plans to extend the criteria for newly qualified teachers beyond the proposed limit of three years since completion of training. (AQO 9427/11-16)

Adrian McQuillan: 10. Mr McQuillan asked the Minister of Education when he will introduce a scheme to allow teachers over 55 years of age to retire early. (AQO 9429/11-16)

John O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 together.
The Investing in the Teaching Workforce Scheme is under development in collaboration with the teaching unions and employers, and criteria for the scheme are still to be finalised.  It is intended that it will be launched in early spring 2016 after all options have been explored.  All relevant criteria will be published at that stage.
While I acknowledge that some disappointment has been expressed about the proposed parameters of the scheme, it must be remembered that it will have the potential to provide up to 500 permanent teaching posts for recently qualified teachers and up to 500 teachers will be able to retire early.  In the absence of the scheme, neither will happen.

Claire Hanna: I thank the Minister for his answer.  The scheme has caused upset.  I do not think that we can consider them new posts; they are obviously just replacement posts.  The scheme will not create new employment.
After 10 years of the Minister's party holding the education portfolio, will he comment on whether young teachers in training or those who are considering teacher training have been told that they should not expect a job in the field?  Can he give any advice on what work they should hope to get after their qualifications have been achieved?

John O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her question.  They are new jobs.  Those jobs would not come online for perhaps five or 10 years.  No other Department has been able to introduce a scheme to release 500 jobs on to the market in the next financial year.  No private investor, foreign or domestic, has been able to produce 500 jobs in the next financial year. Yet, parties inside and outside the Chamber are manipulating the genuine concerns of some teachers on the matter and have acted irresponsibly in the hope of advancing individual and party political careers.
I am on record as saying that I cannot and will not give advice to individuals on what career choice they should make.  That said, anyone taking up a career in teaching should carefully consider all the issues, including whether they will be able to obtain full-time employment at the end of their training period.  I think that that is a sensible thing for a Minister to say.  The career choice that people make is a matter for them.  There is a wide range of options available.  All I am doing is putting down a marker by saying to young, or not-so-young, people that they should consider all the options going forward.  I know that, if this scheme goes ahead, 500 more newly qualified teachers will get a job this year than would have been the case.  If the scheme does not go ahead, 500 newly qualified teachers will not get a job, and 500 teachers over the age of 55 will not retire early.  I have been proactive in trying to assist newly qualified teachers in obtaining employment.  I am also respecting the wishes of individuals who are close to retirement, and who wish to retire, by allowing them to do so in order to revitalise and refresh our teaching workforce.

Alastair Ross: I understand why the Minister is attracted to a scheme to help newly qualified teachers to find permanent work, but he will be aware of a number of concerns about the proposals.  Has he taken advice on the equality issues with such a scheme?  If so, has that led him to reconsider any aspect of it?

John O'Dowd: My officials have met the Equality Commission, I have received written advice from the Equality Commission, and all those matters are under careful consideration.  I have also received legal advice on the matter, and that is also under careful consideration.  All those factors are playing into the decision-making process.
The term "discriminatory" has been used, and perhaps understandably so, but it is being used in such a way as to suggest that I am in breach of not only the letter of equality and employment legislation but of the spirit of that legislation.  I am confident that I am not.  I am confident that proactively targeting a group of newly qualified teachers, who have the greatest difficulty in finding employment, is not in breach of equality or employment legislation.  It is not in breach of the letter or the spirit of the law.  It has to be remembered that the group of teachers finding it most difficult to get employment are those who qualified most recently, in the last number of years.  I have not yet set the number of years, but I am looking at it very carefully.  I am also looking to ensure that the criteria are lawful and in line with equality legislation.

Robin Swann: This seems to have been brought about because of too many students graduating from our teacher training colleges.  Has he reduced the number of places in 2016-17 at Stranmillis University College, St Mary's University College and other providers to try to address the imbalance?

John O'Dowd: I do not see this question being answered by closing our teacher training colleges.

Robin Swann: That is not what I said.

John O'Dowd: In fairness, that is what you are saying, because, if we further reduce the number of trainee teachers, we are, by default, closing our teacher training colleges.  That is a fact.
I am not directly referring to the Member, but I think that it is somewhat unfair for those who call for equality in employment legislation and equality of opportunity to have said in recent days, "We have trained too many teachers.  Close one or both colleges".  What that really says to me is this: "I have my qualifications, I have my opportunity in life, and I have my teaching degree — everybody else can go".

Chris Lyttle: No one said that.

John O'Dowd: There were a number of comments from the Floor.  If Members wish to check articles on various social media sites, they will find that that is exactly what has been said.  It has been said in the broadcast media as well and in correspondence to me.  There are those who call for the closure of our teacher training colleges.  Do we train too many teachers?  In 2004-5, we trained 880.  We have reduced that number by over 30% and now train in and around 500.  We are reducing the intake of our teacher training colleges — we train 580 teachers.
We can control the flow of student teachers into our local teacher training colleges, but we cannot control the number of students who go to England, Wales, Scotland or the South of Ireland to train as teachers and then arrive back here to register with the General Teaching Council and seek employment as teachers.  We cannot control that.  We can close our teacher training colleges and advise all our young people who want to train as teachers to go to England, Scotland, Wales or the South of Ireland, but we will lose the economic driver, which is the teacher training colleges, and the opportunities that those teacher training colleges give us to train teachers in our curriculum needs.

Roy Beggs: I call Trevor Lunn, and I remind the Minister of the two-minute rule.

Trevor Lunn: I am absolutely astonished by the Minister's assertion that to replace 500 existing jobs with 500 replacement teachers equates to 500 new jobs.  That is his arithmetic here.  The number of teachers being trained seems to be a big issue today.  Why does he not use the numbers determined by his own teacher demand model — the model that is used by his Department — and stop this nonsense of training far too many teachers?

John O'Dowd: Whatever arithmetic you look at, the optimum output of the scheme is that 500 older teachers will leave their posts five to 10 years earlier than they would have previously.  Five hundred recently qualified teachers will have employment opportunities that they did not have.

Trevor Lunn: They are not new jobs.

John O'Dowd: They are new jobs and new opportunities.  They refresh the teacher workforce and target a group of teachers who are finding the most difficulty in gaining employment in our society.  They are new jobs.  I could use the voluntary exit scheme, which is funding this proposal, to pay off 500 teachers and not replace their jobs because the education budget — a question will be asked about this later — is under severe pressure.  Severe challenges exist in the education budget, but what I have achieved, in cooperation with the Department of Finance and Personnel and the Executive, which voted on the funding of this scheme, is the use of the voluntary exit scheme in an imaginative and different way in order to create employment where it might otherwise have been lost.  You can describe it in any way, but, in my book, they are new jobs, and I believe that those who fill those posts will see them as new jobs.
The teachers who retire early will be very glad to be vacating their posts and allowing other teachers into them.  For the reasons that I outlined to Mr Swann, I do not agree with the idea that it is nonsense to train teachers.  Those who are proposing the closure of our teacher training colleges need to look beyond the end of their noses.  It is quite clear that, despite even what I said earlier in relation to employment prospects, many of your young people want to train as teachers. They will leave these shores and go elsewhere, but many of them will come back here and still seek employment as teachers.

Adrian McQuillan: I thank the Minister for his answers so far.  How does he prevent teachers who avail themselves of this scheme at the age of 55 from going back in again and subbing, blocking up the system from the other end?

John O'Dowd: Over the last number of years, because of changes that we have made in how retired substitute teachers are paid, and the guidance that we have issued to boards of governors, we have seen a dramatic reduction in the number of retired teachers coming back into the system as substitute teachers, because it is financially not viable for them to do so.  The guidance that we have issued to boards of governors encourages them to seek newly qualified teachers to act as substitute teachers, rather than going back to retired teachers.  It may be that, in some subject areas, it may be beneficial for a school to use a retired teacher, and schools will use them in those circumstances, but the changes to the way in which substitute teachers who have retired are paid and the guidance that we have issued to boards of governors have meant that there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of retired teachers returning to substitute teacher cover.

Jim Allister: Surely the Minister can see that the intended bias towards recently qualified teachers — those who have qualified in the last three years — will have the impact of discriminating against experienced teachers who have not yet found a permanent post.  It amounts to writing off those teachers with more experience and those, perhaps, at a stage of life with more responsibilities, who need a job even more.  Surely the Minister needs to review that situation and ensure that replacement teachers come from that quota of teachers who have not found permanent jobs, rather than discriminating within that quota.

John O'Dowd: Mr Allister knows fine well the language he uses in talking about discrimination.  The question that needs to be asked, Mr Allister — you should know this fine well as a barrister — is this:  is the discrimination legal?  Is it acceptable and legal under the terms of employment legislation and the Equality Act?  That is the question, and I am sure that you have asked yourself this question —

Jim Allister: You are admitting it is discrimination.

John O'Dowd: No.

Roy Beggs: Order.

John O'Dowd: I am sure you have asked yourself this question, and the fact that you are not standing in the corner lambasting me for acting illegally, proves to me at least — me, a mere mortal —

Jim Allister: [Interruption.]

John O'Dowd: — me, a mere mortal — that you have analysed this, and you have come to the opinion that the Minister is acting both legally and within the terms and conditions of the Equality Act —

Roy Beggs: Order, order.  I remind Members that remarks should not be made from a sedentary position.  Minister continue.

John O'Dowd: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.  I am acting in the letter of the law of equality legislation and employment legislation.  The current system discriminates against newly qualified teachers.  Those teachers who have qualified in the last three or four years are the cohort that finds it most difficult to find employment in the teaching profession.  There is clearly an argument that they are being discriminated against.  When the shortlisting takes place in schools and they seek teaching experience over a three- or four-year period, that cohort of newly qualified teachers are discriminated against legally, but they find it most difficult to find employment.  The scheme that I propose gives those teachers an opportunity to apply for posts.  There will still be approximately 500 other posts that come on stream every year for all teachers to apply for, and I wish them all success in doing so.  At the end of the day, whether it is the newly qualified teachers scheme or the other teaching posts, it is up to the board of governors to make that offer of employment.

Schools Estate: Budget Impact

Oliver McMullan: 5. Mr McMullan asked the Minister of Education to outline the impact the uplift in capital in his 2016-17 budget will have on the schools estate. (AQO 9424/11-16)

John O'Dowd: Following the Executive's agreement on Budget 2016-17 on 17 December 2015, my Department has been allocated a total capital budget of £193·7 million.  This allocation includes £20·3 million of capital funding from the economic pact that funds the projects agreed under the Together: Building a United Community initiative.  The total capital budget for 2016-17 represents an increase of £46·9 million on the opening 2015-16 capital allocation.
I am currently working through the impact of the Budget 2016-17 outcome on the education sector, and finalising allocations to specific capital programmes.  I anticipate, however, that the uplift in the 2016-17 capital budget will ensure that all the major work projects due to progress to construction in the financial year 2016-17 will have the required capital funding in place to do so.  It will also allow much of the backlog of minor work schemes that built up as a result of this year's constrained budget to be cleared.  The improved budget position will also facilitate the release of additional school enhancement programme schemes to construction.  Overall, this increase in capital funding will yield only positive results for the schools estate and for our local economy.

Oliver McMullan: I thank the Minister for his answer.  Minister, how much of the backlog of the minor works programme will this be able to reduce?

John O'Dowd: We will be able to work our way through the backlog quite significantly, and I am talking about the backlog that built up last year as a result of what was a reduction in our capital budget.  That said, every year, more minor works come online.  There will be minor works processing through the system at this stage, and I will always be happy to lobby for and gain more capital funds to move our minor works projects forward.  We faced significant issues and problems with minor works this year, but I do believe that we will be able to deal with the backlog that was in the system.  As I said, more schemes under the school enhancement programme, which has been very beneficial to the schools estate, will be released in the weeks and months ahead.

John Dallat: I thank the Minister for his answer.  Gazing into his crystal ball, could the Minister perhaps give us an indication of when schools such as St Paul's in Coleraine and St Mary's in Clady will have the new building that they were promised if they went out of existence in return for a new build?

John O'Dowd: During Question Time, when the issue of capital budgets is raised, there is always a danger that each individual MLA will step up and, quite understandably, ask about projects in their own constituency.  Unfortunately, I can neither carry the paperwork nor store all that information in my head.  However, I am more than happy to forward that information to the Member.

Danny Kennedy: When, before the end of this mandate, does the Minister expect to make an announcement on the capital schools programme?

John O'Dowd: I hope to be in a position to make a capital schools announcement in relation to the primary school sector before the end of this mandate.  I will make that announcement because, in the delivery of primary schools, capital expenditure is less on each project and they are quicker to deliver.  It will be up to future Ministers to make announcements across the range of post-primary, primary, nursery and youth facilities for which the Department of Education is responsible.  We have quite an extensive building programme already on the ground.  I will be making a further announcement about school enhancement programmes in relation to those who have applied.  We did not have the capital funds to move them forward, and I hope to be in a position to move a number of them forward in the weeks and months ahead as well.

Steven Agnew: Does the Minister have any money for capital builds for shared and integrated education in this financial year as a result of the Fresh Start deal?

John O'Dowd: My cup runneth over.  As a result of the Stormont House Agreement, funding for shared and integrated education programmes averages around £50 million per year.  As part of that agreement, we are having discussions with DFP and the Treasury as to how those funds are used.  The discussions are moving forward well, and we will be in a position to start to move the projects forward within this financial year, when we conclude discussions with the three interested parties.  I am more than satisfied as to how those discussions are going.  Integrated and shared education is in for a significant boost to its estate.

Educational Resources: Budget Cuts

Gordon Dunne: 6. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Education how the proposed 3·8% cuts to his departmental budget will impact on front-line educational resources. (AQO 9425/11-16)

John O'Dowd: The Budget 2016-17 outcome for Education is challenging, partly as a result of the real-terms reduction to the Executive’s resource departmental expenditure limit position imposed by the Westminster Government.  Following the Executive’s agreement on Budget 2016-17 on Thursday 17 December 2015, I have been working through the impact of the Budget 2016-17 outcome on the education sector and have not yet come to any final decisions on the 2016-17 budget allocations.  However, although the Budget 2016-17 resource outcome is challenging, as I stated, the position for capital in Education is much better.  My aim is to reach final decisions on my Department’s 2016-17 budget allocations as soon as possible to allow for early notification to schools and other bodies.

Gordon Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer.  Does he recognise that the proposed cuts — and I recognise that they are proposed at this stage — of 3·8%, which equates to approximately £72 million of the resource budget, is a real risk to the teaching profession and will involve the possible loss of teachers, making the management of schools a real challenge for boards of governors?

John O'Dowd: All the Executive budgets are facing a huge challenge, but I do not point the finger of blame at any of the Executive parties.  I blame the economic and policy decisions made at Westminster.  I believe that the Executive recognise the importance of education in our society.  They have done their best, as a collective, to protect the Education budget amid competing priorities, for instance with regards to Health.  However, the Education budget still receives uplifts that other Departments would be very happy to be dealing with.  Even the scale of the cut to the Education budget is not in comparison with what other Departments are facing.
It is worth noting that with the voluntary exit scheme and how that was used last year, school budgets this year will save over £12 million because of the number of staff who left the service last year, which means that schools will have to pay out £12 million less in wages and salary costs this year.  The Education Authority has around £7 million of savings in that area.  If the scheme, which we debated at length earlier in Question Time, is fulfilled, we can make up around £9 million in savings there.
So, there are areas where we can recoup some of the losses to the schools budget; but I am conscious that any dip in the schools budget causes challenges for our schools.

Sandra Overend: I thank the Minister for his responses.  Will the Minister make a commitment that the aggregated schools budget — the money that goes directly to front-line teaching services in schools — will not be cut in the 2016-17 budget?

John O'Dowd: As I said to Mr Dunne, I am working my way through the budget.  I cannot make commitments to any sector at this stage about what will or will not be protected.  It is worth reminding Members that this is the fifth year of a downward trend in the Department of Education and Executive budgets.  Much of the low-hanging fruit has already been removed in previous budgets; we are now dealing with the core budgets:  the aggregated schools budget, funding for the Education Authority and funding for other organisations.  I cannot make a commitment to those operating under any of the budget headlines that they will not face reductions in their spend this year.

Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I thank the Minister for his answers.  I appreciate his attempt to defend his budget in the face of the Conservative Government's onslaught on public spending and front-line services.  He will appreciate, however, that schools are in uncertain circumstances and would like to know their budget as soon as possible.  He said in his answer that he would be able to let schools know soon.  Does he have any idea when that might be?

John O'Dowd: I am working on the basis of weeks rather than months.  I have been in deliberations with my officials since the Executive set their Budget.  I hope to be in a position within the next short number of weeks to inform schools of their budgets for next year.

School Closures: Property Disposal

Adrian Cochrane-Watson: 9. Mr Cochrane-Watson asked the Minister of Education to outline the procedure for the disposal of property when a school closes. (AQO 9428/11-16)

John O'Dowd: When a controlled school closes, the Education Authority (EA) will first consider whether it has any further use for the premises.  Once the EA confirms that the property is surplus to requirements, my Department then determines whether there is any other educational use for it.  If none is determined, the EA will commence the formal disposal process, with the approval of my Department.  Disposal is in line with the guidelines set out by central advisory unit at Land and Property Services in its document, 'Disposal of Surplus Public Sector Property in NI', March 2013.  These guidelines apply to all Departments.  When a voluntary grammar, maintained or grant-maintained integrated school closes, responsibility reverts to the trustees, and it is for them to determine whether to dispose of the property.

Adrian Cochrane-Watson: I thank the Minister for his response.  He has made great play of reusing school premises, such as the old Lisnaskea High School site.  Has his Department an equality-proofed policy?  Can he assure the House that in the case of the Lisanelly Strule project the proceeds accruing from the sale of the sites of the schools moving to the Strule campus will be treated equally and that the taxpayer will be protected?

John O'Dowd: I assure the Member of that.  As I said in my original answer, my Department, as does any Department, has to work under guidance from the central advisory unit in relation to the disposal of surplus public-sector property.  Where schools fall under other managing authorities — for instance, where they are maintained or in the voluntary sector and have therefore received grant payments in the past — there is a claw-back policy to protect all public funds.

Robin Newton: The disposal of a property is in line with the disposal of the building or its potential future use.  Often, deciding on a future use or the eventual clearance of the site takes so long that the building becomes a blight on the area or somewhere for vandals to gather and create a nuisance.  Is there a timescale within which the decision-making process should be completed, so that the two scenarios that I have outlined do not become problems for those who live close by?

John O'Dowd: There is no timescale for the disposal of assets, but two factors encourage disposal.  The first is the authorities, whichever category they are, because you have to pay rates on them.  Security and insurance also become an issue.  In many cases, it is in the best interest of the managing authority of the premises to dispose of the property or land as quickly as possible.

Roy Beggs: That is the end of the period for listed questions.  We now move on to topical questions.

CPR Training in Schools

Karen McKevitt: T1. Mrs McKevitt asked the Minister of Education what steps his Department has taken to ensure that every pupil is given an opportunity to train in CPR in order to create a generation of lifesavers. (AQT 3351/11-16)

John O'Dowd: As the Member will be aware, within the curriculum, it is perfectly feasible and possible for schools to teach first aid and CPR.  Many of our schools avail themselves of the services of the British Heart Foundation, St John Ambulance and other organisations to carry out training in CPR and basic training in first aid etc.  There is a wealth of opportunities for schools to avail themselves of.  We present the curriculum to the schools.  It is up to the schools how they deliver the materials for that curriculum.

Karen McKevitt: I thank the Minister for his response.  Is the Minister saying that it is already in the compulsory curriculum for schools that children should have that training opportunity?

John O'Dowd: No, I am not saying that.  I am saying that, within the curriculum, there is the opportunity for schools to teach first aid.  I recently met the Cormac Trust, which is another organisation that is providing CPR training and defibrillators to the schools that it works with.  The curriculum is set out.  Schools can decide to use which materials from and which interpretation of that curriculum as they see fit.  First aid can be delivered through our curriculum.  It is up to the board of governors of the school what part of the curriculum it delivers in these areas.  However, I encourage schools to partake in CPR training.  I encourage schools to take part in first aid.  As I have said, there are many organisations out there availing themselves of that service.

Breda Academy:  New Build

Michael McGimpsey: T2. Mr McGimpsey asked the Minister of Education, in reference to the last state secondary school in south Belfast, Breda Academy, for which he announced, in July 2014, a new build once its amalgamation went through, whether there has been any further progress. (AQT 3352/11-16)

John O'Dowd: There have been projects across a range of our capital building programmes.  As I said to a Member earlier, I cannot carry around the information on all the capital build programmes.  However, progress is being made on every capital build programme that I have announced.  Unfortunately, to spend tens of millions of pounds of public funds, it takes time to get all the approvals in place, get the business case in place, get the planning approval in place and ensure that the design of the school etc is what will be required moving forward.  All of that takes time before diggers are seen on site.

Michael McGimpsey: I am disappointed with that answer.  I would be surprised if, when my name appeared to ask a topical question, the Minister's officials did not come forward with a suggested list of topics that I was liable to ask about.  That is the whole point of topical questions.  I remind the Minister that Breda is a school designed for 850 pupils.  It is now sitting at 1,000 pupils.  Is there not now urgency to provide an appropriate building?

John O'Dowd: My understanding of topical questions is that it is about policy issues and news stories that have come to light in recent times.  It is not to do with the constituency needs of each individual MLA.  That is my understanding, but I may be wrong.  My officials did come forward with a list of questions that you may ask.  However, the one that was opted for was in relation to the amalgamation of three primary schools in south Belfast.  So, congratulations, you have caught us out on that one.

Strule Shared Education Campus:  Update

Declan McAleer: T3. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Education for an update on the Strule education campus. (AQT 3353/11-16)

John O'Dowd: The Strule education campus is moving forward as planned.  Development and building work has started in relation to Arvalee special needs school.  The Member will be aware that the site clearance is well advanced in relation to the Strule education campus.  We expect completion around 2020.  I am satisfied that all required progress is being made on the Strule site.

Declan McAleer: Go raibh maith agat.  I thank the Minister for his answer.  I understand that a key development for progressing the campus is the development of the Strathroy link road.  Is the Minister in a position to provide an update on that project?

John O'Dowd: The Department is working with Transport NI to progress the Strathroy link road, which is a key element of the campus traffic management solution.  Transport NI published a draft vesting order in November 2015.  Public consultation has been completed, and no objections were received.  The procurement process for the contractor is scheduled to commence at the end of March 2016.  Work on the site is scheduled to commence in January 2017, with completion by April 2018.

GCSE Provision:  AQA/OCR

Fearghal McKinney: T4. Mr McKinney asked the Minister of Education for an update on the AQA and OCR exam board decisions not to offer GCSE subjects to students here. (AQT 3354/11-16)

John O'Dowd: AQA has confirmed in writing that it will no longer provide qualifications here.  OCR has indicated verbally but has not provided any written confirmation to date that it is not prepared to provide the qualifications required by our system.

Fearghal McKinney: In that context, what assurances can the Minister give that all subjects currently offered will continue to be available post September 2016 and that no student will be disproportionately impacted by those decisions?

John O'Dowd: As part of my deliberations on the decision to remain with A* to G grading, it was always in the back of my mind that what are referred to as the English qualification bodies may remove their services.  That has been the case.  Planning has been in place for a period of time in preparation for such a statement coming about.  I hope to be in a position to communicate directly with schools this week or early next week on the plans in place.  I assure the Member that none of our students will be disadvantaged as a result of what is a commercial decision by one of the awarding bodies.  We await written confirmation from the other.

GCSE Provision:  AQA/OCR

Trevor Clarke: T5. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Education, after noting his surprise that GCSE qualifications were not raised until question 4, to state whether he is minded to review his decision on GCSE grading, given that, in a local paper today, three principals from across the sector have stated their concerns about how the decision will disadvantage children. (AQT 3355/11-16)

John O'Dowd: I share the Member's surprise that we reached question 4 before somebody asked me a policy question.  I thought that topical questions were about policy questions, but how and ever.
We have formal notification from one of the bodies — AQA.  I reviewed the information that was at hand to me when I made the original decision to stay with A* to G.  I still believe that that was the right decision for our education system and our young people.  As I said to Mr McKinney, it was always in the back of my mind that what are known as the English awarding bodies may remove their services from here.  Plans were put in place for that.
There are different opinions in education on a range of matters.  That is the reality of the situation.  There are school principals who are opposed to my decision, and there are school principals who support it.  There are others who have varying views on the matter.  I assure everyone that no young person will be put at a disadvantage as a result of AQA's decision or if OCR decides to remove itself from our qualifications.  We have plans in place.  Those young people will be able to study the same wide range of subjects, and the qualifications will be portable and robust.

Trevor Clarke: To a degree, I accept what the Minister is saying about the disadvantage to the children — I do not believe that it will affect the educational standards in our schools.  Surely, however, the Minister accepts that, when employers are looking at the grades of young people coming out of school, it is the grades that they are looking for.  Given that those are English exam bodies, it is going to affect employers and large firms that create employment in Northern Ireland.  Is the Minister minded to look more at that, rather than disadvantaging the employment opportunities of our young people moving forward?

John O'Dowd: No.  There is no evidence to support the argument that our young people will be disadvantaged when seeking employment.  Unless they reintroduce Hadrian's Wall in Britain, Scottish students are going to continue to travel from Scotland to England.  They will be travelling with totally different qualifications from those that the students in England have.  Scotland has its own exam body and system.  England remains with GCSEs.  The Welsh have decided to remain with the A* to G, so they have the same system as we do.  Welsh students and young people seeking employment travel to England, and vice versa.  I am acutely aware that our young people travel to England seeking employment and that large English employing organisations here will be looking at our qualifications.  All those bodies are used to looking at a wide range of qualifications not only from these islands but from across Europe.  To date, they have not shown any difficulties with understanding the changes in GCSEs or the qualifications that come here from across Europe.

Teaching:  Lack of Full-time Employment

Gordon Dunne: T6. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Education whether he recognises that his comments some weeks ago — they were referred to earlier — which were that no one should enter the teaching profession in the belief that they would come out on the other side and obtain full-time employment, were negative and discouraging for young people who aspire to be teachers. (AQT 3356/11-16)

John O'Dowd: Several Members tell me that we are training too many teachers.  I think that it was a responsible thing for a Minister to say.  I made it very clear from the outset that I cannot and will not give individual careers advice, but I advise anyone who is considering taking up teaching to consider all their options carefully and to recognise that, when they finish their teaching qualification, full-time employment may not be available for them.  That is a responsible thing to tell a young person who is considering a career pathway.

Gordon Dunne: It is somewhat disappointing.  From here on in, will the Minister be looking for part-time teachers only?

John O'Dowd: No.  I will be looking to maintain the education budget and to ensure that the Executive recognise the benefits of maintaining our education system and do everything within their power, within a limited budget, to maintain it going forward.  At least the two major parties in the Executive recognise those benefits.  In the time ahead, I will introduce schemes relating to the recruitment of a new cohort of teachers.  I most certainly do not want a system whereby we end up with part-time teachers.  I want a system in which young people who are making career choices will have all the information to hand, and, when they make that career choice, they do so on the basis of being fully informed of the employment potential at the end of it.

Area Plans:  Post-primary Process

Pam Cameron: T7. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Education to outline the post-primary area-based planning process and to state when decisions on that process will be made. (AQT 3357/11-16)

John O'Dowd: The old education and library boards published their area plans, which remain in place under the Education Authority.  Decisions are being made regarding future school enrolments, school building programmes and the layout of the schools estate, based on the area-planning proposals that have been published.  They are under review — they have been under constant review — and will never remain the one shape going into the future.  There will always be a period of review and reflection.  Area planning is a reality, it is taking place, and decisions are made based on it.

Pam Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer so far.  Obviously, I am concerned with the provision of post-16 education in the Antrim area in particular, because there are not a lot of choices for pupils to remain locally.  I am interested to hear when he believes that decisions may be made for that area of Antrim.

John O'Dowd: Those are matters for the EA to finalise.  There are areas in our schools provision about which I have concerns on post-16 provision and the equitability of transfer or access.  The Member mentioned Antrim.  I will seek further information from the Education Authority to ensure that it is moving ahead purposefully on post-16 provision in the Antrim area and to ensure that all young people have access to high-quality A-level provision.

St Patrick’s and St Joseph’s Primary School, Glenullin and Garvagh

Adrian McQuillan: T8. Mr McQuillan asked the Minister of Education whether he thinks that it is fair that St Patrick’s and St Joseph’s Primary School in Glenullin and Garvagh, which was brought together under a federation and now operates on two sites, has been told by the Education Authority that it will not receive funding this year because, down to shrewd management, it had, at the end of March 2015, managed to save a surplus of £57,000. (AQT 3358/11-16)

John O'Dowd: That is difficult to answer, because I do not know whether the amount of money that the Member refers to is in line with the school's agreed surplus.  Schools can carry a surplus or a deficit of up to 5%.  Given that we are living in constrained times, the Education Authority has been working with and, in some cases, challenging schools over the amount of surplus that they are carrying.
I am not suggesting that that is the case here, but I know that, in other cases, the Education Authority has been pointing out to schools that either their surplus is beginning to get out of control, for want of a better term, or their deficit is in a similar scenario.

Roy Beggs: That is the end of the period for questions to the Minister of Education.  I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Seán Rogers: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.   I apologise for missing my question to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment yesterday.  It was an administrative error, as I was at a British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly committee meeting.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Dallat] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Budget 2016-17

Debate resumed on motion:
That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2016-17 as announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 17 December 2015 and set out in the Budget document laid before the Assembly on 13 January 2016. — [Mr Storey (The Minister of Finance and Personnel).]

Leslie Cree: I remember saying last year that the Budget-setting process was very difficult.  Well, it is even more difficult this year.  The Chancellor's spending review announcement was late.  The Fresh Start timetable means that there will not be adequate scrutiny by the Statutory Committees.  In fact, the Executive have already agreed the Budget.  A further complication is that the figures, which have been produced on the basis of the new nine-Department structure, represent a problem in itself.  Baseline positions of resource DEL have been reworked from a 12-Department model to a nine-Department model.  Departments with existing responsibility for functions have decided how these should be applied to the spending areas of the nine future Departments.  Does this mean, for example, that arm's-length bodies will be given a budget that will reflect the Minister's priorities, only to find that, two months later, their new Minister has different priorities?  This would make it very difficult for these bodies to plan ahead and secure adequate staffing.  We have been told that the Executive have agreed to Budget flexibilities in the 2016 June monitoring round, but we do not know what resources may then be available.
Turning now to the detail of the Budget, ring-fenced resource DEL is now being handled differently and, we are told, by the Treasury itself.  Bearing in mind the difficulties that have been experienced in the past with depreciation and impairments, is the Minister satisfied that there will be no unpleasant surprises when these figures are allocated in due course?  A substantial sum of £115·2 million has been identified for a range of projects, some of which has been included in previous Budgets and not been spent.  Can the Minister give an assurance that, this time, the resources will be used and not reallocated to another holding position?
Certain areas of the Budget have been protected.  For example, the police budget will be reduced by only 2%.  However, the police are currently unable to provide the same service.  There is a diminution of the service to the public.  That is not acceptable.  Neighbourhood policing is sparse and the new police districts are much too remote.  Only yesterday, we had the Fire and Rescue Service at Stormont.  It is facing a cut of over £4 million.  It has told us that it is not operating at all times within its own safety limits and, at present, cannot fund ongoing training requirements.  Surely that needs to be addressed urgently.
In the Budget, there are several flagship projects, which have been decided by the Executive.  This will certainly reduce the Minister's discretion when allocating Departments' capital DEL.  Perhaps, the Minister can advise us whether these projects have all been approved to proceed.
One of the new Departments is to be the Department for Communities.  It will incorporate part of DCAL's functions.  Non-ring-fenced resource DEL is approximately £83 million.  Again, can the Minister advise on the breakdown of that figure?  There appears to be no detail.
Once again, a friend of mine — financial transactions capital — is included in the Budget.  In the past, our utilisation of that capital has been at patchy at best.  The current figure of £57·8 million has been allocated to four Departments.  Is the Minister satisfied that it will be spent in 2016-17?  A further £55·8 million in FTC has been earmarked for the Northern Ireland investment fund.  Can the Minister confirm that the fund is now ready to operate?  Have all the previous FTC moneys that were set aside for the fund, going back several years, been reallocated over past years or is there any carry-forward?
Considerable activity has taken place over recent years on asset management.  A unit was set up to maximise asset utilisation and disposal.  In the current year, 2015-16, the Budget envisaged that the unit would deliver £50 million of capital receipts.  Has the £50 million target been reached, and, if not, how much was raised in receipts and what lessons were learned from the unit's work in that area in 2015-16?
Former Minister of Finance and Personnel Mr Hamilton mentioned in his statement on the 2015-16 Budget:
"our economy and therefore our tax base isn’t strong enough to stand on its own."
At present, there is a fiscal deficit in Northern Ireland of approximately £9·2 billion, yet the written ministerial statement on the 2016-17 Budget does not mention any additional revenue-raising measures.  Did the Executive consider that, and, if they did, what was their rationale for ruling out such measures?
Finally, I will return to the subject that has not been resolved.  I refer to the review of the financial process that was agreed by the Committee and supported by the House.  After several years, it has not been approved by the Executive.  The Education Minister has held back that important issue, but it is necessary to move on and change the Budget process into one that provides direct read-across and accountability and that is a modern, logical approach to accounting.  Several Ministers have failed to deliver on that.  I hope, Minister, that you will be able to sort that out at long last.

Trevor Lunn: I am standing in for Judith Cochrane, who is not well today.  I am new to this, a bit like the Minister.
In opening, I will say that I hope that the Minister, if he is still in place this time next year, will come up with something a bit more meaningful, well consulted on and better put together than what is before us today.  It is hardly a surprise that I can confirm that the Alliance Party will oppose the Budget today on the grounds of process and substance, which are the same reasons why our Ministers opposed it.  The Budget was circulated to Ministers at about 9.00 pm on 16 December in preparation for an Executive meeting at 11.00 am on 17 December.  People need to sleep.  Consultation was non-existent.  As on previous occasions, the DUP and Sinn Féin have frankly displayed a disregard for the democratic process and contempt for the views of their nominal partners in government; namely, the three or four smaller parties.  The resultant document cobbled together by two parties is not in any way strategic.  We recognise that 2016-17 is a transitional year and is to be followed by a four-year Budget that will hopefully be properly consulted on and will relate to the Programme for Government.  However, that is not an excuse for financial proposals that entirely miss the opportunity to begin to reform the health service budget, take necessary actions on education, address the cost of a divided society and invest in the economy.
The Minister in his opening remarks mentioned corporation tax, as just about everybody else did.  The date for the devolution of corporation tax is set at 1 April 2018 and the rate is to be 12·5%.  It remains to be seen how that will be financed, but is anyone listening to the explicit warnings, which others have referred to today, from our universities and further education colleges that, unless we produce graduates and output with the necessary skills, we will not be able to satisfy the demand for labour from the very companies that —

Mervyn Storey: Will the Member give way?

Trevor Lunn: Just a moment.  Those are the very companies that we are trying to encourage to come to Northern Ireland through the concession on corporation tax, and they will be looking for skilled labour.  I will give way to the Minister.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Member for giving way.  I trust that he was listening, because he is a Member whom I hold in the highest regard, having worked with him for a number of years.
I have listened to the concerns expressed about further and higher education.  My predecessor gave a commitment, approved by the Executive, of £5 million.  Today, I have given an assurance that we will add £20 million to that.  Is it enough?  We could go round the Chamber, and people will always be looking for more, but I am listening to the concerns because it is a vital issue.

Trevor Lunn: I thank the Minister for his intervention.  I should not have let him in because I could just have read my next sentence, which is that I want to welcome formally what the Finance Minister said today —
[Laughter.]
— and his commitment to allocating an additional £20 million.  I hold him in high regard, just as he appears to hold me in high regard.
It is a fact that we have disinvested in higher education for a number of years.  The £16 million cut from last year's budget compounds an existing structural gap relative to the rest of the UK of approximately £40 million, so we are playing catch-up.  Frankly, Minister, the experts in this field — the university chancellors and so on who have been talking about this recently — are not talking about £20 million; they are talking about five times that, but I acknowledge the start that you are making.
The Budget prioritises health and education at the expense of the economy, which is supposed to be the priority in the Programme for Government.  The Executive — rather, the two-party grouping that makes the decisions offers no challenge to the reform of inefficient public services such as health and education.  There is no attempt to address the cost of division.  What happened to the commitments in Together: Building a United Community, which was two and a half years ago; the Stormont House Agreement, which was over a year ago; and the Audit Commission report, through the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre, which is presumably gathering dust somewhere?
Instead, we have political pet projects like the social investment fund duplicating what is already being done, or should be already being done, by other Departments.  That includes neighbourhood renewal, the employment service, the Pathway to Success strategy for NEETs, the economic inactivity strategy and the European social fund, which seeks to bypass the normal procedures for decision-making based on bids and the assessment of merit.  The result has been stalemate, and 95% of a nominal £80 million budget remains unspent after five years.  It is probably time for the Minister to consider winding up that scheme and reallocating the money to something useful.  He would not be short of suggestions on how to use it, that is for sure.
I can talk about other Departments; I will not major on just the Department for Employment and Learning.  Under the Department of Education, there are 50,000 empty desks — the Minister will be familiar with this argument — and no meaningful approach that I can see to area-based planning, which might have some effect on that figure.  A programme that has been much discussed today — replacing older teachers with new graduates — has merit, Minister, but I am sure that you can see the logic in not producing, year on year, an oversupply of new teachers.  Perhaps you could persuade your ministerial colleague the Minister of Education to do something about that, given that he does not pay for it; you and the Department for Employment and Learning are paying for it.
I could comment on the provision for almost any Department, especially those controlled by DUP and Sinn Féin Ministers, but time does not permit.  The House might reasonably ask what Alliance suggests, rather than being totally negative.  We would not be starting from here, but, if we were, we would include a commitment to publish the independent audit of the cost of division, which is part of the Stormont House Agreement.  We would abolish the social investment fund, which needlessly duplicates what other Departments can do, and reinvest that money in a myriad of other services.  We would immediately halt any plans to relocate the DARD headquarters to Ballykelly.  We think that that is a nonsense.  We asked the Executive to make a commitment to legal aid reform, and I am told that a commitment was included in an earlier draft of the Budget paper.  To go back to my main point, we would significantly increase investment in skills in order to better prepare for a lower rate of corporation tax.
I will end where I started.  This corporation tax cut is coming over the horizon at a galloping pace and, if we are not ready for it, we will be totally embarrassed.  The companies that already are having to go outside of Northern Ireland looking for skilled labour will find themselves in an impossible position.

John Dallat: Time is almost up.

Trevor Lunn: We will oppose this Budget today.

Ian McCrea: Whilst, as the Minister said, he could go around every single Member in this Chamber and ask them for their wish list of things to spend the Budget on, we have to be realistic and realise that we have a certain amount of money to spend, and we can only spread it around as far as it goes.  I think that this is a good Budget, and I commend the Minister, who has only been in place for a week, for bringing it forward.
I think that it has been lost on some Members that this is a one-year Budget.  It is not dealing with all of the strategic priorities for Departments over the next five years.  It is a one-year Budget to get us through to the election to allow the new Departments to set their strategic priorities and deal with the Programme for Government and things around that.  I think that it is a good Budget in that there is not an overcommitment.  The Minister said that this is the first time in years that there has not been an overcommitment in the Budget.  It is unfortunate that there are Members who do not recognise that.
It is no surprise that Claire Hanna, who is not in her place, was against the Budget.  Whilst she spoke well around how she thought that the Budget delivers nothing, she made no attempt whatsoever to speak positively around any aspect of it.  There was not one word on how to do it any better or on which Department to take money from to pay for what she wants.  Maybe the SDLP will stick with its policy of selling off the City of Derry Airport again to pay for its additional requests.
I believe that this Budget and the flagship projects show that the Executive have given a commitment to delivering projects across Northern Ireland.  In my constituency, it is welcome news that the Minister for Regional Development recently announced the dualling of the A6 from Randalstown to Castledawson.  I believe that that is a good-news project.  The fact that it is not just an amount of money for one year but is a year-on-year commitment up to 2021 is good news; it is something that will be committed to and delivered.
The community safety college in Desertcreat is another flagship project, and the Budget provides evidence that the Executive have committed to that project.  I am not going to try to pretend that a mess has not been made of this up to now.  It has been long enough on the books to have been built twice or three times.  How and ever,  it is good that the Executive have committed to ensuring that something will be built on this site, and I look forward to see that happening, as no doubt will the others  who represent that constituency.
It is unfortunate that there are Members who are making very little of these flagship projects, and I am truly surprised by that when I look at some of the other projects that are on the list.  It includes the mother and children's hospital, Belfast rapid transport and the Belfast transport hub.  Millions and millions of pounds have been allocated to deliver these projects, but that seems to be worthless, and no thinking has gone into this whatsoever.
I see that Mr Nesbitt is in his place.  It would be wrong of me not to mention how wrong he was in making a sweeping statement prior to the Fresh Start Agreement in which he said that the deal would include half a billion pounds of borrowing and would "mortgage our children's future".  Unless I have missed something, mortgages are not a bad thing.

Mike Nesbitt: I very much appreciate the Member giving way.  Would he inform the House what the current level of debt is to service the Budget annually?

Ian McCrea: I do not have the figures in front of me.  I am happy to give way to the Member if he wants to give us that information.

Mike Nesbitt: I appreciate that.  It is £60 million per annum.

Ian McCrea: I thank the Member for that information.  However, anyone who believes that borrowing is a bad thing either is a fool or is kidding themselves.  Borrowing is not a bad thing as long as you service the debt.  It is important that people service the debt, and that is every bit the same for people in their home as it is for the Executive.  It is shameful —

John McCallister: Will the Member give way?

Ian McCrea: Quickly.

John McCallister: I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  I think that is an incredible statement.  Yes, you could make an argument for borrowing to invest in capital projects but not for borrowing just to pay your way or, indeed, at times, to make people redundant.  Mr Nesbitt's point was that it will cost £60 million to service the debt each year, and we are going to push up borrowing from £2·1 billion to £3 billion.  That is an incredible figure when you look at the scale of Northern Ireland's finances.

Ian McCrea: I cannot disagree with you; it is an incredible figure.  Again, if we look at the voluntary exit scheme, we see that £183 million was borrowed against it, but £160 million has been saved, and that will continue year-on-year.  Is that a bad thing?  I do not believe that it is.
Whilst I do not expect that we will get support from the whole way around the Chamber — it seems that that will be the case — I hope that we will consider Mr Nesbitt's getting it wrong in respect of the Budget: there was no additional borrowing in the Fresh Start Agreement that was not already built into the Stormont House Agreement.  Again, maybe he will apologise for that like he apologised for the singing of our national anthem.

Maeve McLaughlin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I welcome the opportunity to address the House initially as the Chair of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, and I thank the Minister for providing the chance for the debate.
Looking at the 2016-17 budget compared with that for 2015-16, we see that the Executive have allocated the Department of Health an additional £128 million.  That is, indeed, welcome news.  However, even with that increase, the Department will face a difficult year ahead because of budgetary pressures. Officials came before the Committee last week to provide us with some further information on what the financial picture for 2016-17 is looking like. The cost pressures facing the Department continue to increase each year and are roughly running at between 5% and 6% each year.  They are typically linked to pay and non-pay inflation; the costs of meeting the healthcare needs of an ageing population; and continued developments in healthcare technologies and treatments.  That trend is expected to continue into 2016-17 and beyond.
Of key concern to the Committee is how the Department will allocate its budget for 2016-17 across a range of spending areas.  When the officials were before us last week, we asked them directly for information on the Minister's priorities.  That information is crucial because, logically, spending decisions should be informed by ministerial priorities.  However, officials were only able to provide us with a very broad brush picture of the Minister's priorities.  They told us that the Minister’s — I quote —
“overall aim and vision is to build a world-class health and social care service”
and that he wants to:
"drive up the quality of health and social care for patients, clients and carers, to improve outcomes, to safeguard the vulnerable, and to ensure that patients, clients and carers have the best possible experience in every aspect of their treatment, care and support".
Nobody would disagree with those high-level objectives.  However, they provide us with no detail as to how the £4·88 billion will be spent in 2016-17. The officials advised that further information on the Minister’s priorities would be set out in the commissioning plan direction for 2016-17.  However, that document will not be with the Committee for comment until late January or early February, which is obviously too late for the purposes of the debate today.
Members were keen to hear how the Department would approach the significant waiting times for elective care appointments.  Again, officials could not advise how much money was going to be allocated to that issue.  They said it would depend on what savings could be found in other areas.  In the Committee’s eyes, the rationale behind this approach is not clear.  Surely, if something is a priority, money should be allocated to it.
Committee members were also concerned that in the areas where savings would be made there may be a tendency to look at quick savings, rather than take a longer-term approach.  For example, the Committee was firmly of the view that we would not want to see trusts cutting back on domiciliary care packages as a quick fix to balance the budget for 2016-17.  We were also concerned that the Health and Social Care Board and the PHA are charged with scrutinising the trusts’ savings plans, rather than the Department itself, given the recent proposal to dismantle the board.
That then brought us to the issue of how moneys for voluntary exit were being dealt with in 2016-17.  The Minister has announced a major reform of health and social care.  Obviously, that will have an impact in relation to voluntary redundancy packages for some staff.  However, there is no allocation for voluntary exit in the 2016-17 budget; instead, it appears that the issue will be dealt with through June monitoring.  This seems unusual, given the scale of the reform agenda proposed by the Department of Health.
Key questions remain unanswered about the spending plans for 2016-17, questions that are of vital interest to Members, healthcare professionals and, indeed, the wider community.  They are questions such as these: when will a pay award be found for nurses in the 2016-17 budget and when will additional training places for GPs be found in the 2016-17 budget?
While the Committee welcomes the additional money for Health, we are disappointed at the level of detail available on how the Department’s budget will be spent.
I would now like to make a few comments as a Sinn Féin MLA.  Workforce planning has been and continues to be a mess.  Three-plus years into the Transforming Your Care process, the Minister still cannot tell us the size of the workforce that we require.  Nursing is in crisis.  There are 784 vacancies — 3·8% of the workforce population — in the nursing workforce.  If that pay situation is not resolved, these people will simply vote with their feet and leave.

Fearghal McKinney: I thank the Member for giving way.  The Member has not seen my speech yet, but it is already clear that her concerns are reflected in what I am prepared to deliver to the House, and, in that context, I will vote against the Budget.  Given your concerns, will Sinn Féin also vote against it?

Maeve McLaughlin: I thank the Member for his intervention. Our position has been very clear — Mr McKinney knows that too well — in relation to alternative solutions to the austerity plan that is being driven elsewhere, external to the House, in moving forward.
I reiterate the point about the crisis in nursing pay.  We were told — this is an important point — only last week that the 1% pay increase will cost £23 million.  Four days previous to that, it was £38 million.  The buck clearly stops with the Minister and the Department to find the money.  It is not acceptable at a time when we see pressures on front-line staff that, over the last five years, almost £55 million has been paid out in bonuses to senior consultants.  Before I hear the retort that that is a contractual arrangement, I remind the House that the court process around those clinical excellence schemes found that those bonuses are quite clearly at the Minister's discretion.
Mental health is a major issue.  I suggest to the House today that spend on services —

John Dallat: Time is almost up.

Maeve McLaughlin: — for mental health is about 25% less than proposed spend by the trusts.  Health inequalities remain stark —

John Dallat: The Member's time is up.

Maeve McLaughlin: — and I suggest to the House today that, if we are genuine about the implementation of Budget reform and, indeed, future Budgets, we should move to a genuine public health model that targets health inequalities to the core.

John Dallat: I must remind Members that we have a very long list and that if people eat into their time there will be less for other people.  I call Mr Tom Buchanan, Chairperson of the Social Development Committee.  Apologies, I have promoted you wrongly.

Thomas Buchanan: I am nearly there.  First, I congratulate and commend my friend and colleague Mervyn Storey for taking on the role as Finance Minister and wish him well.  As we come to our Budget debate today, many challenges lie ahead, not least in employment and learning, on which I want to focus my remarks today.  However, while there are challenges that we must tackle, we also have an opportunity to build a solid foundation that supports economic growth, strengthens social inclusion, inspires people to achieve their aspirations and provides hope for future generations.
The establishment of the new Department for the Economy, bringing together the further and higher education sectors alongside our business community, will, I believe, play a key role in continuing to strengthen the economy and to drive it forward.  There is no doubt that, in the past few years, just like all other sectors of society, further and higher education felt the pain of the economic recession, which not only created many challenges for them but is still having an impact on them today as they continue to deliver for their students.  However, as we all know, challenges always bring new opportunities and innovative ways of delivering.
Reskilling and upskilling our people is essential to give everyone the opportunity to realise their full potential and to make a valuable contribution to society.  That is one of the challenges that must be properly addressed if we want people ready for the devolution of corporation tax.

Fearghal McKinney: I thank the Member for giving way.  In the context of his recent remarks, will he explain how a £12 million cut in the training budget for undergraduates and a cut to graduate places is consistent with the ambition that he has just reflected?

Thomas Buchanan: If the Member had been listening, he would have realised that we said that many challenges have to be faced, but we will face up to those and we will move on.  I was glad to hear the Finance Minister in his opening remarks today announce that not only is there the commitment of £5 million in this Budget for the skills agenda but that it is his intention to make available another £20 million at the June monitoring round.
One of the areas of concern has not only been the reskilling of our people but the upskilling of our 18- to 24-year-olds.  If we fail to invest in them, we will be in danger of losing them to other parts of the UK or further afield.  If we want to see continual growth and stability in our economy, we must continue to invest in our youth, who are tomorrow's workforce.
Investing in our skills is also a key element of the rebuilding and rebalancing of our economy.  In order to exert the best value from the devolution of corporation tax, we must ensure that Northern Ireland has within its shores a skilled and talented pool of people who are ready to take advantage of employment opportunities as they arise, whether that is within the local business sector, through indigenous business growth or through foreign direct investment.
While the Department for Employment and Learning has a number of ongoing strategies, I believe that there will be a job of work to do within the new Department for the Economy to ensure that what is funded actually provides for and meets the needs of our employers and foreign direct investors.  Far too often, in Committee, we hear from employers who are especially looking for electricians, plumbers and welders, yet the training experience that potential employees have received has failed to meet the criteria that those employers are after.  As we move into the future within the constraints that exist, it will be more important than ever that what is funded actually meets the required needs of employers.  That is the most important issue for the funding of reskilling and upskilling going forward.  What is delivered must need the needs that employers have and require.
Despite all the challenges that we face and the hurdles that are sometimes put in the way, I believe that the extra £20 million that will come to the Department for the Economy in the June monitoring round is a good news story that will be welcomed by the further and higher education sectors.  Mind you, I am not so sure that the SDLP will get a clap on the back for refusing to support the Budget and this extra money for the reskilling and upskilling of our people.  There will also be road infrastructure programmes, one in my constituency and one in the neighbouring constituency, and, again, the SDLP appear to be denying the money for those programmes.  I am not so sure that they will get a clap on the back for doing that either.
It has been clearly started that it is one-year Budget.  I believe that it is good Budget and one that is worthy of support by the House.

John Dallat: I call Mr Alex Maskey, who is, indeed, the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee.

Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle — a LeasCheann Comhairle.  Tá brón orm.  I would like to say a few words as the Chair of the Social Development Committee.  First, I welcome the Budget and congratulate the Minister, who, as Members are aware, was the Minister for Social Development until very recently.  I am not sure that you would describe his new post as an elevation; you might even describe it as going from the frying pan into the fire.  Nevertheless, members of the Social Development Committee who have grown accustomed to working with the Minister in his former capacity as Social Development Minister would hope, dream and like to think that he might perhaps bring some of his insights from the great and glorious work of his former Department to his decision-making in the new Department of Finance.  That is not to say that we are looking for any type of favouritism, but we would like to think that his experience will enable him to be continually more progressive in respect of housing, disadvantage and working with the social sectors of the community and the voluntary sector.
All that having been said, I think that we are at an important stage.  It is important to remind ourselves that, just a matter of weeks ago, we were in very great danger of not having an Assembly or the other political institutions, never mind a Budget.  It is welcome that we are here today with a Budget.
On behalf of the Social Development Committee, I would say that a one-year Budget is appropriate enough, particularly as the Department for Social Development merges into the new Department for Communities.  It will allow for the Department to be subsumed into a larger Department and to work its way through the various new responsibilities.
I ask the Minister for some clarification on the £1 million de minimis rule whereby, in the new Department, heads of service units, for example, may have to apply to the Department or the Executive for spends of £1 million-plus. That could lead to a lot of bureaucracy, and decision-making being slowed down.
I appreciate that the process will be dealt with more holistically, if you like, in the June monitoring round.  Nevertheless, I ask the Minister to give some clarity to that.
The Department briefed the Committee on 10 December and highlighted the fact that the cuts that it could have been facing were been anywhere from 5% to 10%.  I think I can safely say that Members will be relieved that the 5·7% cut announced in the Budget is at least at the lesser end of the scale.  Even in his new capacity as Finance Minister, the Minister will be aware that the Committee has routinely scrutinised the spend and is particularly focused on the provision for social housing, the protection of regeneration, and neighbourhood renewal funding streams and other streams within the voluntary and community sector.  The Minister will obviously be fully aware that the Committee is fully intent on working with the new Minister, Maurice Morrow, to try to see where we can minimise the impact of any cuts to service delivery, although we have no doubt that, as other Members said, there will be impacts on service delivery as these budgets are delivered.
That being said, it is important that we have a Budget.  We accept that it is for one year.  We appreciate that it will be ironed out in the June monitoring round and obviously thereafter.  I suppose that is particularly helpful in the context of the elections coming up in May.  Once the new Assembly and new Departments are established and the new Programme for Government is agreed to, the Departments and all the Ministers will have to work with their Committees and their members to do the best that they possibly can for the incoming year.  More importantly, let us hope that, with the fresh start perspective, we can build for the future.
As a Member of Sinn Féin, I welcome the Budget and fully accept that there are difficult challenges within it.  I have yet to hear from those who say they oppose the Budget.  I put it on the record that some of those who say they will oppose this Budget have opposed every single Budget since 2007, so there is nothing new in that.  More importantly, they continue to offer no alternative and nothing by way of saying, "Here's how we can do better".  Yes, they can criticise and ask questions, but I really do question the integrity of a party that wants to sit in the Executive and then wants to question every other Minister about where their money is coming from or how they are spending it.  Although I have said in previous debates that, if I had my way, there would not be an opposition provided for here because I think we are still coming out of conflict and all the parties have a responsibility to work together to tackle the big issues, if people are really so set on acting like an opposition, they should at least have the courage to join it, if there was one.  They certainly have not provided any up to now.
I think that what is important for me, and certainly for my party, is that we have hopefully managed to stabilise the political situation here with the embedding of these institutions.  What we now have to do, and I have welcomed the comments from the First Minister and deputy First Minister and other colleagues in the last while, is to build on that.  It is not enough that we have rescued this institution; we need to make it work in the best interests of all the people we represent.  Certainly in my capacity as Chair and member of the Social Development Committee, a lot of my focus in recent times has been on the need for the provision of social housing and tackling disadvantage at its core within hard-pressed communities.  Communities need to see the benefit of the process that we are all involved in and are supposedly giving some leadership to.  I encourage the Minister to make sure that, where cuts have to fall on Departments, we protect the most vulnerable.
In that context, I put on record my personal thanks and gratitude to the expert panel that today produced and published the welfare mitigation package.  I have not read it in full but I understand that it does the job of determining where the allocation of £500 million —

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Would the Member take an intervention?

Alex Maskey: Yes.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Can the Member remind us of how much money is set aside in this Budget to protect those on welfare — the most vulnerable?

Alex Maskey: I thank the Member for that intervention.  I think the Member will know that a figure of over £500 million has been identified for mitigation for the cuts being imposed by the British Government and that there are other cuts.  Obviously, that £500 million will not allay or assuage all the problems, but I firmly believe and am confident that it will go a considerable distance towards supporting those who are most vulnerable in our society.  I look forward to hearing further details from Professor Evason and her colleagues when they are in a position to do that.
I welcome the fact that we have a Budget today that stabilises the political institutions, which now starts to give certainty to the Departments and, more importantly, the recipients of the Budget in the time ahead, at least for the next 12 months.  It is important that we stabilise the situation with the Budget.  The Budget was hard fought for but does not go anywhere far enough in addressing all the cuts imposed by London.  I am satisfied, however, that, under the circumstances, the parties involved in the negotiations did as good a job as they possibly could.

John Dallat: The Member's time is almost up.

Alex Maskey: When you add the Budget to the mitigation package, this is a good day, which we can all only hope to build on.

Colum Eastwood: The SDLP will not support this Budget, and I will be making a very critical speech about it.  I will not, however, question the integrity of anybody in the Chamber.  I do not believe that that is a good way to go about our business.  I will begin by congratulating the Minister on his elevation; he has clearly shown himself to be a very competent and capable Minister, and I look forward to working with him in his new role.
It has to be said, however, that, if yesterday was Blue Monday, this is truly a Blue Tuesday Budget.  As one of the final acts of Stormont's current leadership, this is a Budget that is depressingly familiar.  There is no fresh start here.  It is a Budget that is characterised by its lack of ambition, lack of creativity and lack of ideas.  It is a Budget that has been cobbled together by two parties whose only interest seems to be staying in power.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Will the Member take a point of information?

Colum Eastwood: No, I will not.
This is the height of their ambition — nothing more.  Our new joint First Minister may well decry the fact that Stormont has become a watchword for stagnation.  She is, of course, right, but she does not seem to understand that she must take some responsibility for that reality.  The DUP and Sinn Féin have now been in charge of this place for nine years.  By any standards, in any other job, that is time enough to take some responsibility and be held accountable.  Some would say that it is time enough to be sacked.
As my colleague Claire Hanna said, this is a Budget that gives up and gives in.  Instead of investing in people, it invests £700 million in redundancies.  Instead of investing in the future, it cuts into services for our children and young people.  Instead of fighting crime, it cuts the police and prisons budget further.  That is welcome news for the criminals who attack our elderly people and burgle our homes.  This is the Budget that is before us today.
I want to say something positive.  In fairness, there is one stand-out area of ambition.  They have identified moneys for seven major capital projects:  part of the A5; part of the A6; the Belfast rapid transit system; the Belfast transport hub; the mother and children's hospital; Desertcreat; and regional and subregional stadia.  According to today's Budget, those will cost £1·1 billion, yet this Budget tells us that these projects are to be funded from the £100 million of borrowing provided under the Stormont House Agreement.  Getting £100 million to stretch to cover £1·1 billion of capital projects is some ambition indeed.  It is an expression of optimism comparable only with the plenty provided by the biblical loaves and fishes.  I fear, however, that there is a key difference here, in that there are no messiahs on either the Sinn Féin or DUP Benches.  In reality, someone is either bad at maths or bad at lying.
With my limited time, I will focus in particular on education and skills.  Forty-eight hours after the two vice chancellors of our two universities gave a warning on Radio Ulster that higher education faced dire choices, this Budget cuts a further £24 million from higher education and skills.  Two thousand student places have already been cut, and this Budget ensures that that number will spiral further.
Not only does that mean that more and more of our young people are forced to leave this place in search of education and training, it leaves a huge hole in our economy.  That continued exodus of our young people is hurting our economy, hurting our families, hurting our communities and hurting our ability to grow jobs.  As Professor Patrick Johnston pointed out this week:
"We're bringing corporation tax in in 2018, we actually today don't have the graduates to fill those jobs".
The attack on education is particularly significant in Northern Ireland.  Ever since the 1947 Act, education has played a massive role in the story of the North.  History records its role in creating the civil rights generation.  That is something that obviously runs deep in the hearts and minds of the nationalist community.  We know the importance of access to education.  We know the change it can bring to the lives of individuals and communities.  For Sinn Féin to acquiesce today in stripping that progress away, piece by piece, student place by student place, for them to be helping to remove that access to education for this generation is nothing short of a disgrace.  They are walking on very dangerous ground.  Let them be warned: the Nationalist community in the North — this generation — will not forgive them for it.
No doubt they will say that the criticisms of the Budget by the SDLP are about the election.  Well for once, they are right: it is about the election.  It is about the choice that May's election will offer.  This Budget exposes the personality behind the power.  It seems their only belief, their only ambition is for themselves.  They will accuse us —

Daithí McKay: Will the Member give way?

Colum Eastwood: No thank you.  They will accuse us of negativity. They are not great at taking criticism; they get very annoyed.  Despite their shouts of negativity, it is, in fact, they who have invested most in the currency of cynicism.  They are cynical about what politics in this place can actually achieve.  They believe that Stormont only has to exist, nothing more.  Theirs is the ideology of keeping the show on the road, nothing more.  They believe that that will be enough for the electorate.  It is as crude a calculation as this Budget.
We do not think that people will be fooled.  In the SDLP, we believe in more.  There is £1·7 billion: £1 billion in the RRI, £600 million in the HS2 consequential and £100 million in the Northern Ireland investment fund that could be used to prioritise and to achieve more.  We believe that the politics of this place can reach for more.  We believe we can have different priorities — different priorities that invest in people and in the future.  We believe that the North can do better than this.  We believe that this place has to do better than this.  That is the choice in May.  That is the alternative on offer.

Mike Nesbitt: I will restrict my comments to the contents of the Budget 2016-17 document. It is a very interesting document.  On the one hand, it is very light, particularly light on detail of how Minister Storey and his Executive colleagues intend to spend the £11 billion at their disposal in the next financial year.  It is very, very light.  On the other hand, it is heavier in terms of economic context and, indeed, the context for publishing this Budget at this stage.
The Fresh Start Agreement committed the Executive to having a Budget agreed before the end of this month, and that required the Budget to be expedited in a manner that is different from how it was done in previous years. Did it really? What do we mean by "different"?  We mean with no consultation and little debate.  The document represents the agreed Executive position on the 2016-17 Budget.  Does it really?  Surely it just represents the agreed position between the DUP and Sinn Féin.  Actually, perhaps that is a more honest way of going forward with this devolved Government.  The Executive are not a four-party Executive; they are a two-party Executive. The DUP and Sinn Féin have the votes, and they got them at the polls, so fair enough.
Let us look at the economic and social context.  The growth forecast for Northern Ireland is 1·9%, although they are honest enough to say that the latest data suggests that the recovery is losing momentum.  What they do not say is whether it is 1·9% or 1·8% or 1·7%.  Fifty miles away, the people of the Republic of Ireland are enjoying 6% growth. How come the Government in Dublin can do 6% growth, yet the Executive cannot even do 2%?  I look forward to the Minister's response to that.
Living standards are mentioned on page 7.  This is great: I like gross value added (GVA) as a measure of living standards and prosperity.  Ours increased — fair enough — by 2·5% between 2013 and 2014.  However, the UK figure was 4·6%, the English figure was 4·6% and the Scottish figure was 4·6%. You would be better off in Scotland.  GVA per head increased by 1·9%, but in the UK it increased by 3·6%, in England by 3·7% and in Scotland by 4·2%.  Our people would be better off elsewhere. Northern Ireland's GVA per head — £18,682 — was 75·9% of the UK average.  That is the prosperity gap.  It states here:
"Northern Ireland's GVA per head has remained consistently at around 75 to 80 per cent of the UK average".
Here is the clincher: it peaked at 83·7% in 2007.  Why is 2007 an important year in my mind?

Peter Weir: It was the start of the recession.

Mike Nesbitt: No, it was not.  The recession started in 2008, while 2007 was the year in which the DUP and Sinn Féin took charge.  That was the peak, and, since then, for nine years, we have been slumping — a point already made by the leader of the SDLP.
Let us look at economic inactivity, which, the document states:
"remains stubbornly high at around 27 per cent".
Are you not ashamed?  Some 27% of your people are economically inactive.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Can I make a point of information?  I owe you a point of information, Mr Nesbitt.  Perhaps you will take one on that point?

Mike Nesbitt: Do you want to double up?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Thank you, yes.  That is two that you have in the bank.  I accept all of that.  You are reading from the book, so the statistics must be right, but I hope —

John Dallat: Order, please.  Remarks must be made through the Chair.  I say that to both Members.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Pardon me, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I say that to Mr Nesbitt because none of us will disagree with what is in the book or the Bible, but could he move on to the solutions?  I am really interested in them.  I heard Mr Cree speak earlier, and I would love to hear some solutions from the UUP to the problems that we have.

Mike Nesbitt: Thank you very much.  Some 27% of our people are economically inactive.  Here is the solution, Mr Ó Muilleoir: it lies in mental health and well-being.  We all know that many, many people woke up this morning with no sense of purpose in their life.  They will go to bed tonight with no sense of achievement, and they long for that sense of achievement.  They long for a more fulfilled life and they long for a job, but they cannot have that because of their poor mental health and well-being.  Our per capita rates are among the worst in the world.  They are certainly up there in the top three, with the likes of Lebanon and Israel.  We have the same problems as everybody else, and we have the legacy issue of mental health and well-being.  There is where the Ulster Unionist Party would start: by empowering people to stop them being economically inactive.  Why have the Executive not done something about that? Yes, we have ideas.
Between the departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and annually managed expenditure (AME), there is £20 billion.  AME is £9 billion, which you do not have discretion over, but it is there.  There is £11 billion in the block grant — £11 billion that we need out of London.  There was a time when we were net contributors to the Treasury.  I am not saying that we will ever get back to that point, but should we not aspire to that?  Should we not try to be less dependent on the block grant?  Would that not generate jobs, wealth and well-being for our people?  I believe that it would.
And on to the debt.  Mr Ian McCrea obviously thinks that we should borrow more: I disagree.  We currently have to find £60 million per annum just to service the debt.  For Mr McCrea's benefit, I point out that the Department of Health's budget for paramedic services is £60 million.  That is how big servicing the debt is.  Sixty million pounds is twice what the Department of Justice has to spend on creating safer communities.
Let us not, therefore, be dismissive of or complacent about the level of debt.

Edwin Poots: Will the Member give way?

Mike Nesbitt: Yes.

Edwin Poots: Would he like to remind us which party negotiated the reinvestment and reform initiative (RRI) deal that enabled us to borrow the money for infrastructure projects?

John Dallat: The Member has an extra minute.

Mike Nesbitt: That was a very smart comment from Mr Poots, but that was a long time ago, and the debt is not all RRI, as he knows.
[Laughter.]
If you think that it is a laughing matter, saddling our children and grandchildren with a level of debt that requires £60 million per annum in interest payments, smile away, Mr Poots; laugh away, Mr Deputy Speaker.  The DUP does not seem to care.
The Budget is very light on the detail of how the Executive intend spending the £11 billion —

John Dallat: The Member's time is almost up.

Mike Nesbitt: On that basis, this party, in opposition, will not support it.

Peter Weir: I have great pleasure in following the leaders of the two main opposition parties, one still mysteriously in the Government.  I will perhaps remark on that later.
First, I congratulate my colleague Mervyn Storey and wish him well.  I know that he is constrained to 34 minutes in his summation, but at least we can look forward to some very punchy comments then.
Before I move on to a couple of more general points in my capacity as a DUP MLA, I want to make a few remarks on behalf of the Committee for Education.  During the previous debate of this kind, virtually a year ago, on 27 January 2015, my predecessor — I think that it was Mr Storey — was able to comment in rather more detail on the Department of Education’s budget than will be possible today.  In about three weeks' time, the Committee is due to be briefed by officials on the detail of the budget, and that constrains some of the conclusions that I am able to make today.
I begin by looking at the overall picture of the Department of Education resource figure.  DE has gained an allocation of around £40 million from the Executive.  The Committee understands that a considerable sum — around £35 million — has been added to the 2016-17 baseline to meet substantial additional liabilities associated with teachers’ pensions.  I should say, at this point, that clarification on this allocation is most welcome.  My understanding is that the enhanced budget was then subject to about a 5% cut.
The resource budget was then boosted by a further £70 million to meet the costs of redundancy and, essentially, an early retirement scheme for teachers.  I will say more about that in a moment.  The money is effectively ring-fenced for those purposes.  As the House is aware, DE undertook redundancies in schools in the current financial year and paid for some of them from its resource budget.  Thus, the argument advanced by some DE officials that the Department is £70 million worse off in 2016-17 may not be entirely watertight.  We will wish to explore that further when we see the detailed budget position.
Just when you think that things are complicated enough, there is a further complexity involving changes to employer rebates for National Insurance.  We have been advised that that may amount to about £30 million in DE.  The Committee has sought information on the breakdown of these costs and on the separate impact of related changes for low-paid workers.
I mentioned earlier a kind of early retirement scheme for teachers.  The Investing in the Teaching Workforce scheme will cost about £33 million and, if fully taken up, apply to around 500 teachers, who will gain early reduced access to their pension.  They are to be replaced by 500 relatively newly qualified teachers.  It is no secret that the scheme attracted a great deal of public comment.  It is the largest single allocation from the public sector transformation fund to any Department, and an additional £14 million will be used to fund about 300 separate redundancies.  It is fair to say that there has been controversy around the scheme.  Indeed, the Committee has put a question mark against the entry point and is still teasing out whether the Department has got that right.  The Committee will also want to probe further whether this is good value for public money and whether those made redundant could simply have been replaced.  We will want to tease that out.  Given the short timescales, we will probably require further information.
The Department is also due to receive around £25 million for 600 non-teaching redundancies, both school- and non-school-based.  The Committee has long been of the view that the administration of education is too expensive and that the budget would be better spent in the classroom.  I think that the Committee still feels this way.  However, I should note that the 300 or so redundancies in the Education Authority were not envisaged in the business case for that organisation.  Members have expressed concerns that the teaching staff released may put additional pressure on support services such as CASS (Curriculum Advisory and Support Service).
It is also worth noting that, in recent years, the Department of Education's staffing levels have increased by around 6%, with a 10% increase in salary costs, so we are not starting from the position of the Department of Education already seeing redundancies.  While there have been some cuts, the Committee will want to see the Department's plan continue into this process in 2016-17.
I mentioned spending in the classroom.  I believe that the Committee will place much of its focus on the aggregated schools budget.  The capital budget is to increase in 2016-17, which is, of course, welcomed by the Committee.  Most Members will be aware of the schools enhancement programme and the minor works, and there is a lot that needs to be done.  Again, we will see the progress on that.  Finally, as a Committee we will be trying to take the views of stakeholders on what the broader direction of the Programme for Government should be in the future.

Jim Allister: Will the Member give way?

Peter Weir: I really have only a very short period of time, and I want to make some remarks.  Well, I will give way if the Member is going to be brief.

Jim Allister: Is he, as Chairman of the Committee, not dismayed that, in the Budget line for Education, of all Departments, we get a global figure for schools of £1·9 billion with no breakdown or indication of where it will be spent, what sector it will be spent in or anything else?  Is that not something that should exercise the Committee?

Peter Weir: The lack of transparency from the Department of Education has certainly been a concern for some time.  Given its failure to take part in savings delivery plans, for example, there has been a concern that there is a silo mentality in the Department.  We will want to drill down into that when we have the officials with us very shortly.  As I indicated at the start of the speech, that limits the amount that I can say in relation to the departmental budget.  We will be getting that information in February.  However, it is an ongoing concern and I do not disagree with the Member, for once, on that subject.
I will say briefly, as an MLA, that I have been here as Budgets have come and gone.  I had the great pleasure and honour of listening to the last two speeches from the leaders of the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists.  To be fair, the Ulster Unionists are outside the Government, and, therefore, whatever criticism they make is at least based on that.  However, if one came as an outsider to this place, one would be shocked to learn that the SDLP, for all its criticism, has consistently been a member of this Executive.  This is not criticism from an opposition but from a party that is in the Government.  A more honest position would be to follow what the Ulster Unionist Party has done.  I listened with interest to the catalogue of figures from the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party and the clichés from the leader of the SDLP.  We heard a litany of figures.  When my colleague —

John Dallat: The Member's time is almost up.

Peter Weir: — from Lagan Valley raised this, there was not a single concrete idea for practical change.  It is a lack —

John Dallat: The Member's time is up.

Christopher Hazzard: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I welcome this opportunity to speak.  I know that my colleague Alex Maskey was hoping that the Minister's former role as Minister for Social Development would mean that he would look favourably on those requests.  Given that he is a former Chair of the Education Committee, I hope that he will look favourably on Education requests.
Mike Nesbitt said that there is a need for greater context.  I agree with that point, in that we really cannot ignore the devastating impact that Westminster-driven austerity continues to have on our local budgets.  It would be remiss of us not to mention that here today.  The relentless attack on the block grant has ensured that we, collectively, as an Executive and as an Assembly, are unable to deliver the level of public services that we would ideally like to.
There can be no doubt that Westminster promises nothing but more austerity in the years to come.  Nowhere is that sharper than in the big Departments of Health and Education.  There are going to be very challenging times ahead for those Departments, which manage such massive budgets and large estates.  When we look at the process of area planning and our schools estate, we see massive challenges ahead.  That is where innovation, creativity and a desire to lead will have to come to the fore.  As has been stressed, it takes political leadership.  It takes those on board to be on board, and, if you are opposed, you should stand outside and be opposed.  We must not be opposed to ideas simply for political capital, such as we see happening with the investing in the teacher workforce scheme.  That scheme is designed to give employment to 500 newly graduated teachers, who are the teachers who find it the hardest to find employment.  It has been said that there are 500, 600 or 700 appointments a year for those beyond the three-year period, but teachers, in the first three years after coming out, find it very difficult indeed to get employment.
There are also big decisions to be made around school transport.  Here is a budget that has spent millions of pounds.  We are going to have to tackle it.  I have no doubt that the next Education Minister will address that and it is something that the House —

Trevor Lunn: I thank Mr Hazzard for giving way.  Does he agree that, while those 500 jobs are welcome, they are not actually new jobs?

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his intervention.  I was in the Chamber earlier for this point as well.  They are new posts.  They are posts that were not filled by the 500 people who will be leaving through early retirement.  If those posts were not created with this money, the 500 people would not go out, so they are new posts.  I thank the Member for his intervention nonetheless.
As I said, area planning and school transport are just two issues where Education is going to have massive challenges.  We are seeing a far greater need to utilise the block grant to its maximum effect.  As we go forward over the next number of years, we are going to have to see that.  We are going to have to see real, proper financial targeting and an outcomes-based approach that really demonstrates changes.  All too often, we have not seen that.  There has been some criticism around various programmes of late.  We are going to have to see a vast improvement.
Another area, of course, is revenue raising.  This institution is going to have to seriously look at revenue raising.  I ask that we follow the principles of targeting revenue raising at those who can pay.  It is not going to be enough to simply have a blanket approach and make everyone pay; we are going to have to be innovative and creative when it comes to revenue raising.  At the end of the day, if austerity from Westminster is going to be the calling card, we are going to have to protect our own Budget and stand on our own feet.
Finally, it is about putting alternatives on paper.  It is about standing over ideas.  That is where we see a complete failure from the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists here today.  Colum Eastwood said that it is about choices.  Let us have the choices.  We are not hearing the choices at all.  I noticed that a large number of SDLP members managed to find their way to Dublin at the weekend for the Fianna Fáil ard-fheis.  If it were a political party standing for election in the South, and they went into a TV studio and criticised the Budget, the first question that they would be asked is, "Where is your costed alternative?".  Never once has the SDLP produced a costed alternative in document form and gone to the media to say, "There's our costed alternative.  If you don't like what you're getting from the Executive, there's our costed alternative".  The reason is that the SDLP is in the Executive.
Mike Nesbitt said that it is light on detail.  Again, from what we have heard today, the Ulster Unionist Party is completely light on detail.  We have heard absolutely no alternatives.  Not one solution has been forwarded today.  Not once has it been said, "X is wrong, so we offer you y".  That simply does not come into the equation.

Daithí McKay: Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard: I will indeed.

Daithí McKay: The Member makes an excellent point.  Any opposition worth its salt, whether in the Government or out of the Government, or whether it does not know where it is at in regard to the Government, produces an alternative document when it comes to the Budget.  We do it in the Dáil.  The parties here have failed to produce a single page of an alternative to the Budget.

Christopher Hazzard: I thank the Member for his intervention.  Perhaps the SDLP is still trying to finalise its prosperity plan.  I am not sure.  Maybe it has not got round to producing an alternative costed Budget, but that is exactly what has to happen.  If you want to be considered as a serious party of Government, you have to produce costed alternatives.  That is simply —

Fearghal McKinney: Will the Member give way?

Christopher Hazzard: No.  I want to finish on this point.
That is what you have to do.  If you want to sit at the table with the big boys, let us have some real politics.  Let us get away from the calling of names and little integrity.  This is a Budget that we are discussing here today.  If you do not like what you see in front of you, let us see some alternatives.

Alastair Ross: I rise on behalf of the Committee.  The Committee noted the Department's intention to largely protect the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Youth Justice Agency, the Probation Board, the range of policing bodies and the voluntary and community sector by subjecting them to a budget reduction of between 1·5% and 2·9%, rather than applying a 5·7% reduction across all areas.  The Committee took the opportunity to explore a range of issues, including the likely impact of the further proposed 1·5% budget reductions on the voluntary and community organisations that provide services such as victim support and NIACRO, the ability of the Probation Board to continue to deliver its statutory services and the cost of legacy-related work to the Department and the PSNI.
I welcome the decision to limit the reduction in the PSNI's core budget to 2%.  That will enable the Chief Constable to address the ongoing resilience challenges faced by the police and undertake recruitment to ensure that he has an appropriate number of officers and the necessary funding to deliver front-line policing, including community policing and the protection of public safety.  The provision of an additional £32 million for security funding provided in the Fresh Start Agreement, whilst ring-fenced for specific purposes, will also help ease the PSNI budget position.  However, given the ongoing budget pressures, there is a clear need for the PSNI to continue to examine all areas of its spending.  Whilst there are, clearly, security considerations in some aspects of their work, I believe that there is, undoubtedly, an opportunity for shared services with other aspects of the public sector.
When considering the Justice budget last year, the Committee raised concerns regarding proposed cuts to funding for the voluntary and community organisations that provide front-line services, such as the drug arrest referrals, which the Minister will be well aware of in his constituency, harm-reduction services and rehabilitation and preventative programmes for offenders.  The Committee highlighted at that time that the aim of those organisations is to help keep people out of prison and out of the criminal justice system.  The Committee was of the view that the reduction or closure of such services would most likely result in increased costs for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the courts and, ultimately, the Prison Service.  It advised the Department of Justice that a cost-benefit analysis and an analysis of the likely impact on, and cost to, other areas of the criminal justice system should be carried out before such decisions were taken and stated that, otherwise, it would result in a false economy and greater costs in the long run.  Unfortunately, the Department did not provide evidence of such an analysis before proceeding with the budget reductions.
I and other Committee members met representatives from NIACRO and Extern, last week.  Both organisations provide interventions to reduce the risk of reoffending and often work with offenders who have committed serious offences.  They are concerned about the direction of travel of the partnership relationship between themselves and the Department of Justice and about how funding will peter out in years to come.  Both organisations pointed out that, even though they are charities, they are providing core services with high-risk offenders and are essential to the overall delivery of services, rather than what could be classified as "add-on" services.  However, no analysis of what funding is provided, how funding is used, what is delivered for the money and what the impact would be, if the service was not delivered, has been carried out, as far as we are aware.  We must come to the recognition that, sometimes, there are services that government cannot deliver.  I think that this is a clear example of a service that government could not deliver, but it is important that we have the right partners who can do that.
I think the Minister will be glad to hear that the Committee has looked at how we can operate in reduced climates.  It is not just about asking for more money; it is about how we do more with the money we have.  With that in mind, we looked at the budgetary pressures and difficult challenges, and we saw them as an opportunity to do things differently and adopt new and innovative ways of working and delivering services.
When I took up post, I initiated a range of work to look at new and innovative approaches that could be adopted, reforms that could be brought into justice and ways in which we could improve the delivery of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland in the context of reducing budgets.  We identified a range of areas, including online dispute resolution, problem-solving courts, improving efficiency in the courts and identifying where we could save money but, crucially, improve outcomes for victims and offenders.  When looking at reducing legal aid, in particular, we need to have something viable in its place.  I think that the online dispute resolution system, as used in the Netherlands and Canada, is a clear example of where we can still get good outcomes for citizens but at reduced cost to the taxpayer.  That is where innovation in justice can deliver real outcomes.  Next month, the Justice Committee will be assessing the information gathered, identifying new initiatives and ways of working and looking at how they can be adopted in Northern Ireland.  We will make a series of recommendations for the Justice Minister.
Finally, I do not think that you could ever expect a speech from a Chairman of the Committee for Justice with no reference to legal aid.  The Committee has spent considerable time on legal aid, since the devolution of policing and justice in 2010.  We have never lived within our means when it comes to legal aid.  I have no doubt that the Committee for Justice in the new mandate will also have to spend considerable time looking at that issue.
The additional allocation of £15 million provided by the Executive for legal aid is of course welcome to meet the pressure and will help to address some of the forecast pressure.  However, given the current budgetary climate and the funding pressure on all areas, the present position where the cost of legal aid continually exceeds the available budget, requiring resources to be diverted from other areas either in the Department of Justice or by the Executive, is not sustainable.  Concerted efforts must be made to reach a satisfactory resolution.  The Committee is disappointed with the current situation where members of both legal professions have come off record, resulting in a considerable backlog of cases in the Crown Courts and the Bar Council's recent decision to suspend dialogue with the Department of Justice.  The Committee urges both professions and the Department to continue discussions with a view to reaching agreement regarding legal aid fees whilst recognising the budgetary constraints that apply to all areas.  We run the real risk of, next year, having a huge backlog in the courts and a double hit with regard to pressures on the legal aid budget.  That will leave either the Department or the Executive in a very difficult financial position.
It is clear that the Department of Justice continues to face a difficult budgetary climate in 2016-17.  Funding will have to be carefully managed to ensure that key priorities and targets can be delivered to the required standard and front-line services protected.  It is absolutely clear that new and innovative approaches will need to play a part in this, as doing the same is no longer an option.

Anna Lo: I welcome the opportunity to outline briefly the discussions of the Committee for the Environment on the Budget for 2016-17.  Departmental officials briefed the Committee at its meeting on 14 January.  Officials discussed the in-year monitoring position, the transfer of functions from DOE to three new Departments and the budget for 2016-17.
The Committee is aware that the Budget for 2016-17 is based on the new nine-Department model.  As current DOE functions are being split over three Departments, the Committee sought clarification on what funding would be available for current DOE functions following the transfer.  Officials advised the Committee that a 5·7% reduction had been applied to the resource budget.  That will present challenges to the new Departments as they seek to maintain the delivery of priority services.
The Committee is aware that approximately £16 million resource has been allocated for road safety and policy and strategic planning and policy in the Department for Infrastructure and approximately £28 million for the environment functions in Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (DAERA).  Officials also advised that £56 million had been allocated to the Department for Communities for local government and the historic environment division, although that is not clear from the Executive's Budget document.
The Committee has sought to ensure that the current environment functions receive the appropriate budgetary and policy weight in their new Departments and that there is no diminution of planned programmes.  The Committee has been advised that, following the May elections, the June monitoring round will provide new Ministers the opportunity to reallocate and realign budgets to reflect their priorities more closely.
There are so many priority areas in the current functions of DOE: local government, which recently underwent its own significant reform and has faced financial challenges; the natural environment fund, which provides important funding for projects that aim to protect our environment and our precious biodiversity; and road safety.  The Committee has stressed the need for a communications strategy to raise public awareness of the provisions of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, which recently passed its legislative stages in the Assembly.  However, that is certainly not an exhaustive list, and the Committee is concerned that those functions may be diluted in a larger Department.  The Committee will reflect that in its legacy report.  That concludes my comments as Chairperson of the Committee.
I now wish to say a few words on behalf of the Alliance Party.  Our party recognises that the Budget is for just one year — 2016-17 — with a four-year Budget to follow.  However, that does not change the fact that this Budget is not strategic and was not subject to public consultation.  Although the figures balance, it does not have any mechanism for making public finances more sustainable.  There is also no mention of revenue raising.  This Budget is predicated on a 100% cuts-and-reallocation basis.  We believe that there are missed opportunities to reform the health service and education, to address the costs of a divided society and to invest in the economy, especially with a decision now taken on the reduction of corporation tax from 1 April 2018.  We know that corporation tax is important for economic growth, but it cannot deliver the outcomes that we want without investing in key economic drivers, especially skills, yet Northern Ireland is reducing investment in higher education.
The £60 million cut from last year's Budget compounds a pre-existing gap between us and the rest of the UK of about £40 million.  I acknowledge the announcement today of an increase of £20 million in funding for DEL for this year.  The Budget prioritises health and education at the expense of the economy, despite the Programme for Government stating that the economy should be the top priority.  In fact, you could argue that the scale of protection of those budgets creates less incentive for reform of those two Departments.  The Budget provides a 2% increase to Health, which has a major impact on all other departmental budgets.  In fact, 2% is not really enough without reform and reconfiguration of the health service.  Investment would need to be around 5% to keep up with demand.  There is a case for some protection of the health budget, but there is significant scope for reform in the health sector, driven in part through benchmarking, market testing and reforms to the estate.
The Alliance Party accepts that Northern Ireland's financial situation is very serious.  However, we do not believe that the Budget is sufficiently prudent.  We therefore oppose the motion.

Trevor Clarke: In case there is any shadow of doubt, I speak in my capacity as an MLA and not as Chairman of the Committee for Regional Development.
I have listened to the debate for the period I have been in the Chamber.  My colleague referred to those in opposition today, and some of their comments are interesting.  However, contrast that with the good news about the Budget and about the allocation for roads.  Given that I am the Chairman of that Committee but speaking in a personal capacity, I think that we have to welcome the commitment from the Minister and the Executive parties about the money that has been released for the A6 project, the A5, Belfast rapid transit and the other projects that are referred to as flagship projects.
The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party may want to reflect on the middle of last year, when his Minister could not keep the street lights on, could not fill potholes and could not give certainty to the industry in relation to fixing or maintaining the roads.  There have been announcements in recent weeks about capital investment for our roads.

Mike Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way.  Have you anything to say about the Budget and the debate we are actually engaged in?

Trevor Clarke: That was a very meaningful interjection from the Member who gave us all his woes and glows earlier, as well as a history lesson, but when he was challenged about who introduced some of this stuff and was pointed back to his party, he had nothing to say — just like he has nothing to say now, and just like his Minister had nothing to offer last year.  I have to say that, with the Executive and all the problems they have had over recent months, "fresh start" is a good description of where they are going and the direction of travel we are on.
[Interruption.]
I can hear him laugh.  Maybe he wants to speak to the Quarry Products Association (QPA), which, when his Minister was in charge, was considering laying off its workforce.  The QPA has welcomed the investment announced by the current Minister for the security and jobs that it is bringing.
That is not ideal.  However, it is better than having a workforce — you know this, Mr Deputy Speaker, given that we met them through the Committee — where some of the organisations employing those individuals were suggesting a month's notice and were going to be getting rid of them.  We also heard in the Committee that some were going to England to seek work because there was nothing in Northern Ireland.  If the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party wants to criticise a Budget that is investing tens of millions of pounds in infrastructure in Northern Ireland, so be it.
I think a degree of certainty has been brought into the homes of those employed in that industry.  He talked previously about mortgaging this place.  There are people employed in that sector who have mortgages and are glad of the certainty that Fresh Start has brought.  They are glad of the investment that has been brought to Northern Ireland and to its roads, securing their futures so that they can pay their mortgages.  However, if the leader of the Ulster Unionists thinks that is a bad thing, shame on him, is all I have to say.
I welcome this Budget.  I welcome the opportunity for officials to come to the Committee this week to get into more detail on it.  I am sure it is not everything that we would want, but there is enough in it for us to get going and to bring certainty to some of those employed in that sector.  I certainly will be voting in favour of the Budget.

Declan McAleer: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I will speak on behalf of our party and, indeed, of my Sinn Féin colleagues on the Committee for Regional Development.  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Budget.
It is very important to point out from the outset that DRD is operating within a 9% cut, so it has taken its fair share of the cuts.  Despite that, I think it is fair to say that we have a fair and balanced distribution of the funding allocation.  Whilst there are a number of outstanding issues relating to the funding and that will have implications for the new Department for Infrastructure, most relate to functions that will be inherited by the new Department, like the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA), road safety and Rivers Agency.  I look forward, as will other members, to teasing out many of those issues tomorrow when the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) project officials come before the Committee for Regional Development.
Whilst there is a wide range of issues that we could focus on, there are two that I want to look at.  One relates to flagship projects and the other to structural maintenance.  Those are two very important issues in the document.
We welcome the statement from the Minister on 17 December that recognised the importance of those flagship projects for the economy and, indeed, for providing funding certainty beyond this financial year.  In my constituency of West Tyrone — Mr Buchanan referred to this — one of those flagship projects related to the £229 million allocated to the A5 over the next number of years.  That is good news and absolutely vital to address the infrastructure deficit that we have west of the Bann.  This has been long-awaited, especially by the business community and commuters.  It will reduce journey times and increase road safety.  It is also a very important economic driver.
(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Newton] in the Chair)
When the business case for the A5 was being constructed, they identified that it would be worth £1 billion of an injection to the local economy not just in the construction but through the trickle-down effect from the wider development.  The Budget document states that £229 million has been allocated, but I understand that £170 million is required to fund section 1.  I anticipate that the remaining £59 million will be for the other sections, bearing in mind that we will continue the efforts, working with the Irish Government, to uplift their contribution from the current £75 million to the original £400 million.  Indeed, the A5 is part of the Irish Government's national development plan, and this will no doubt become a topic of future questions in Committee and to the Minister.

Cathal Ó hOisín: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.  Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as mo ligint isteach.  I thank the Member for allowing me in.  He mentioned the £229 million identified for the A5.  I also recognise the relief and delight at the announcement of £258 million for the A6 and, in particular, that construction of the Randalstown-Castledawson section will commence this summer.  That is also advancing the Dungiven bypass.  Will the Member, who is a member of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development, acknowledge the fact that the largest number of civil servants are moving to the new DARD headquarters at Ballykelly?  I heard another Member describe that as nonsense.  That, indeed, is welcomed right across the north and west.

Robin Newton: I remind the Member that an intervention should be short and to the point and should not be a speech.  The Member has an extra minute.

Declan McAleer: Yes, indeed.  As part of the wider north-west area, I also recognise those infrastructural developments.
My second topic relates to structural maintenance, to which this Budget allocates £66 million.  Indeed, as an MLA who is a member of the Regional Development Committee, I have been heavily lobbied by the QPA, has have many others, about the impact of a reduction in the structural maintenance budget.  Whilst the funding allocated is substantially short of the recommendation in the Snaith review, it is nevertheless an uplift of over £10 million from the allocations in 2012-13 and 2013-14.  That increases road safety and jobs.  Many subcontractors in west Tyrone and other areas are very appreciative of this contribution and the uplift to the structural maintenance budget.  Industry experts have told us that reactive patching costs 10 times as much as planned works and does not address the underlying problems, so this investment is very welcome.
In conclusion, within the parameters of the budgetary settlement, we feel that a fair balance has been struck between investing in our existing network and planning the development of the strategic network that is so critical to the economic development and growth of the North.  As I stated at the outset, we still have to tease out a number of key issues relating to the new DFI.  We will start this tomorrow when the DFI project team comes before the Committee.  I take this opportunity to say that, despite the issues that we have to tease out with officials, in the round, we support this Budget.

Fearghal McKinney: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate.  As SDLP deputy leader and health spokesperson, I will focus on the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.  The SDLP has alternative approaches, and I will outline some of those in relation to health in my remarks.  One thing that will definitely not be in those proposals is Chris Hazzard's wacky economics, which propose paying off everybody's credit card bills.  That will not be anywhere near what our proposals will be.
Like others, I congratulate the new Finance Minister on his recent appointment.  Like all of us, he is aware that there are many genuine pressures on the health service.  Throughout the past number of years, I have been expressing, on behalf of the party, our concern about the financial allocation to the health service.  Those fiscal shortfalls are provoking severe and intolerable pressures across Health and Social Care.  It is important to recognise, as I do in every contribution, the pressures on nearly 65,000 dedicated and professional staff who work to the highest standards in often difficult situations.  Their commitment, energy and compassion should receive the highest praise.  Remember that the circumstances that they are working under are not of their making.
As we enter 2016, the public are feeling the cold from the health crisis, with seemingly insurmountable pressures around A&E, colossal queues for elective care, 300,000 people on waiting lists, and care home closures, followed by the stripping of home domiciliary care services.  Against that backdrop, the latest round of winter hospital statistics are not surprising.  As the SDLP has been pointing out for months, there is a real crisis here.  What continues to shock the public and others is that the Minister and the Department have continually failed to implement a robust and coherent long-term strategy to deal with increasing demand on the system.  To use a health image, it has been all sticking plaster and no strategy.  Northern Ireland now has the worst record in the UK for 12- and four-hour waiting targets for emergency care, and that has been reflected all across Northern Ireland.  In fact, patients' care is continually being put at risk, with hospitals continuing to breach those targets.  Indeed, some of that is emerging now out of the new critical-care building; they are diverting people out of it now because the pressures are still there.
As already mentioned, we also have a massive crisis in elective care, caused by the Minister and the Department effectively redirecting funds away from elective care into those emergency departments.  That was in an effort to try to solve the A&E crisis, but all they did was provoke another one in elective care.  We have clearly seen that this short-term approach has failed, and we should not be surprised when we have no long-term strategy.  We have many people, especially the elderly, who are waiting enormous lengths of time for treatment.  In the 21st century, that is simply unforgivable.  It was unforgivable when this crisis erupted late last year and we had no Minister in place to respond.  That is an indictment of leadership.
The Minister will no doubt point to the November monitoring round, but that has done little to mitigate those pressures, and I do not see any significant additional funding in next year's budget.  The extra £40 million given last year is a speck in the ocean, and there are question marks over how it can be spent and whether the Department has made any meaningful attempt to increase public-sector capacity.  The resolution of the elective care crisis and future resolutions will not be mitigated until there is that proper strategic focus at the heart of our health service, followed by implementation.
Today's Budget should have been an important opportunity to signal a change.  We have known for years the context of the problem, and this was an important opportunity to signal a change.  However, the focus is not on older people's care, nor is it on the community side.  Nor is there a major signal from the Executive that, once and for all, we will deal with these issues comprehensively.  The SDLP has been consistent in that argument.
It is important to remember the context that pressure on the Health budget grows by around 6% annually.  As this Budget is presented, there is a massive flaw.  In the next year, health and social care will receive an extra 1% in real terms to deal with additional pressure, not to mention recurrent pressures from last year, and I will get to that in a moment.  This question remains:  where does the Minister intend to get the 5% savings, and what is his plan to mitigate demand for services and increasing spend?
We do not have, for example — I know that a point was made earlier about detail — statistics on trusts' savings plans.  The approach taken by successive DUP Health Ministers has been to fundamentally ignore the underlying issues attributing to demand.  To continue in this current direction of travel only means that, as we go forward in this short-term way, we will not address the issues as they emerge.  Kicking the problems facing the health service down the line, beyond the election — I think there is a motivation there — does not resolve the problems, and the public here deserve better and more.
The Minister's most recent proposal to shut the Health and Social Care Board will not benefit patient outcomes.  Of course it addresses a layer of bureaucracy, but there are no savings to be made from changing a name plaque on a building and diverting staff — some of them into the trust.  I see the Minister shaking his head.  We had figures last week at the Committee, Minister, that reflected that, of the 600 staff, maybe 10% would go.  Most of them are going to the Department, and a load are going to the trust.  The Minister has provided little detail on his transformation fund, aimed at encouraging reform and innovation.  Has it even received any appropriation of funding in this Budget, and has he engaged with staff on that fund?  Those are important questions.  In the meantime, there is still a chance for change.  At its core, Transforming Your Care saw the strain that there was on the health service, particularly on the expensive side, with a growing older population and longer-term health conditions, and the need to reach into communities with meaningful health interventions by bolstering primary care.  In 2011, authors recognised and acknowledged that growing demand.

Robin Newton: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Fearghal McKinney: I will, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.  Thank you.  We will be voting against the Budget.

Jo-Anne Dobson: I welcome the opportunity to speak in today's Budget debate.  At the outset, however, I express my disappointment that the Executive have again become even less transparent in the past 12 months.  Last year, despite it clearly only being done for the optics, the Executive at least attempted to hold a public consultation, mainly over December 2014.  There were more than 20,000 responses received, a fact that the then Finance Minister thought was of no importance, given that the Executive agreed the final Budget only two weeks later, long before a genuine synopsis of the responses could have been completed.  This year, however, there has been no consultation at all.  Once again, in the absence of the detailed spending plans, it is impossible to make an informed assessment of the proposals that the Assembly is being asked to nod through this evening.
I make the same point that my party has repeatedly made in the Chamber.  Our entire Budget process is backwards.  Setting aside the fact that the membership of this Assembly is setting the next Assembly's Budget, we continue to have the age-old problem that, instead of Departments identifying their costs and saying what they need, they are given a lump sum and told that it is up to them how to spend it.  There is no deliberation and certainly no strategic thinking.  Therefore, I share my party's concerns about the capacity of the Budget.
In my role as Ulster Unionist Party health spokesperson, that is where my main interest in the Budget lies.  When the officials were briefing the Committee recently, we were told that the cost pressures are building each year, yet the true extent of those pressures is not yet known or, if it is, it is not being revealed.  However, our constituents, often painfully, are experiencing that pressure in growing numbers every single day.  We are all aware of the pressures faced, particularly by the health trusts.  Those pressures are only being compounded by the pressures carried over year on year along with savings plans.  Of course, when we ask the Health Minister how much the so-called emergency savings measures implemented in October 2014 have saved, he refuses to tell us.  I remind him that there are other means than Assembly questions.
Although I welcome the protection that our health service has been given, the Budget and the discussions that preceded it have done nothing to address the elephant in the room that is the wider funding crisis.  It is a crisis that is now increasingly compromising the safety of patients and the delivery of safe and sustainable services.  Only last week, for instance, the true scale of the waiting times crisis in hospitals across the country was revealed to my party.  In Craigavon Area Hospital in my constituency, the number of people waiting longer than the maximum 18 weeks jumped from 187 three years ago to 8,752 at the end of last year.  Does the new Finance Minister really think that that is acceptable?  I am sure that he does not, yet the Budget that he was handed by the now First Minister has done nothing to address it.
Outpatient waits are only one example of the current crisis.  There are many more, not least in core services such as cancer diagnosis and treatments.  I do not need to remind the House of the pressures facing the Fire and Rescue Service.  Hopefully, yesterday will have come as the sharp call to action that Simon Hamilton clearly needed.  Again, I call for the service to be considered a front-line service.  We attempted to give it more money last year out of the surplus — unused and untouched — social investment fund (SIF) moneys, but the DUP and Sinn Féin did what they do best.  They protected their own backs and their fiefdoms while leaving the Fire Service unprotected.
Only £4 million of the £80 million has been spent.  Despite the crisis, the Department of Health has spent £200 million employing locum medical staff simply because of its failure to engage in workforce planning.  Over the last three years, the number of health administrators earning over £100,000 has doubled.  It is my sincere hope that, given that Simon Hamilton has no interest in addressing the current problems, aside from stunts and asking for further reports on what we already know, whoever is Minister in four months' time tries harder and has more authenticity.
Moving on —

Gordon Lyons: Will the Member give way?

Jo-Anne Dobson: Very quickly.

Gordon Lyons: The Member has outlined some of the existing problems in the health service.  We know that the Health Department is a very challenging Department with a very challenging set of circumstances.  She outlined some of the things that she would like to happen.  She would like to put all the SIF money into health and get rid of administrators.  Will she give us some figures?  How much does she think is needed to address the problems in health?  How much revenue can be raised from the issues that she raised?

Robin Newton: The Member has an extra minute.

Jo-Anne Dobson: I thank the Member for his intervention.  Of course, all of that will become apparent in due course.  Maybe when you have been here longer, you will be able to find that out.
Moving on, I would like to make a few brief comments on the DARD budget, specifically two aspects of it.  The Finance Minister knows my concerns about the proposed Ballykelly headquarters.  The Budget document proposes that £10·4 million will be spent on it next year.  Given the absence of any real business plan, I am still alarmed by that.  Again, I urge the Minister to at least consider the vacant DVA office in Coleraine as a possibly cheaper option rather than blindly considering only Ballykelly.  I also continue to have major reservations about the projected cost of the Northern Ireland food animal information system, which will receive £2·7 million next year.
I would now like to make a few comments on behalf of the Audit Committee.  The Committee was briefed by the Audit Office in December on its resource requirement for 2016-17.  There was a discussion about what further cost reduction could be achieved without compromising the Audit Office's ability to carry out its statutory and value for money functions.  The Committee wrote to the Finance Minister to highlight the savings that the Audit Office delivers in its value for money work.  The Committee had concerns that cuts to the Audit Office budget would limit that work and the work on good practice that it undertakes.  The Committee, therefore, welcomes the Budget allocation of £7·9 million, which will ensure that the Audit Office can continue the important role that it undertakes in providing us with an independent audit assurance in relation to the use of public funds.
In conclusion, I would like to express my disappointment at the growing cost of administration in the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.  Since the end of 2011, it has increased by £4·9 million, or 12%, to £45·2 million.  Given the failure of the Department to honour Programme for Government commitments to reduce bureaucracy and red tape for farmers, I am sure that the industry will be more frustrated and disappointed by those spiralling costs.

Paula Bradley: Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Budget debate today.  First, I congratulate Minister Storey on his new position.  I am sure that he can think of nothing better to be doing on a Tuesday afternoon than being here for the Budget debate.
There is an old saying that my family quotes, and I have heard a few Members do so in the Chamber as well.  Sometimes, when I get a wee bit above myself, my mother will say, "Don't forget where you come from".  That is what I am telling you as I talk today about the Department for Communities and DSD, because I do not want you to forget where you have come from.  When you were Minister for Social Development — the Chair of the Committee has already commented on it — you worked very well with the Committee and had a very good understanding of the needs in that Department.
I have to get away from saying "DSD", so I will address my comments today to the Department for Communities, which is a really exciting new Department that we in the Assembly have ahead of us.  I said that my comments will be specific to the Department for Communities, but we know that many issues in that Department will have an adverse, knock-on effect on many other things.  The Department for Communities encompasses so many social issues to do with housing, housing conditions, Supporting People, welfare reform, funding for advice, neighbourhood renewal and the social fund.  We know that a lot of those have a knock-on effect on health, employment and education.  That is why I would like to see an indication within the Budget that the Minister is most definitely supporting the most vulnerable within our community.
The first item that I turn to is housing.  Much has been done in this mandate to look at what was a clear neglect of social and affordable housing in previous years.  We have come some way, but we really have not come far enough.  This morning, the Social Development Minister, Lord Morrow, made a statement to the House.  He was asked a question about housing need by a Member who represents Strabane and, in his answer, he mentioned that there are 40,000 people on the waiting list, with half of those in housing stress.  That is absolutely diabolical.  I am an MLA for North Belfast, which is one of the areas that is in need of housing investment, and probably 70% of the work that comes through my office is from people who are looking for rehousing or who are homeless.
There is also the issue of housing conditions.  That has been a major issue in many of our estates, especially in the estates beside me in Rathcoole and Queens Park.  There has been neglect there, and those people are in need of input to make their houses fit to live in.  I hope that the Minister will address that issue when we look at housing.  The area that I grew up in, that I live in and that I represent in North Belfast has seen no affordable homes being built since 1972.  That is such a long time for the people of Glengormley.  They have had a waiting list for all those years, but that has not been addressed.  I hope that the Minister will address and look at that.
The next issue that I want to talk about is Supporting People.  From sitting on the Committee, I know that the Supporting People funding was protected up until now.  Minister, when you came into the Department for Social Development  — this is all getting very confusing, with you being our past Minister for Social Development — you made a commitment to the House to be a champion for Supporting People, and I have to say that you have fulfilled that.
You will remember that, just before Christmas, you and I attended an event in Belfast City Council that was run by the Patient Client Council and that looked at homelessness and access to health in homelessness, among other things.  You and I both spoke at that event, and we heard the real-life, brutal truth of what it was like to be homeless in Northern Ireland and the effects that that has on many of our citizens.  We heard about the neglect of health and about prostitution.  There are so many facets when it comes to homelessness.  I am glad that, in your position as Social Development Minister, you undertook to endeavour to make a difference with that.  I hope that that will continue in your new position as Finance Minister.

Dolores Kelly: I thank the Member for giving way.  My point is a slight variation on the trend of Supporting People.  It is about the women's centre childcare fund, which is another issue that the Minister was committed to in his previous life in DSD.  I am very disappointed that there is no budget heading or commitment within the Budget in relation to that fund.  I ask for the Member's support on that issue and to include it in her contribution.

Robin Newton: The Member has an extra minute.

Paula Bradley: I thank the Member very much.  I think that she was mind reading as to what I was going to come on to next.  For me and for many of us, that is an extremely important issue.  I will just finish on the issue of homelessness.
The Committee for Social Development has had various briefings about homelessness and the issue of wet and dry hostels, with there being no bed availability.  That happens on most occasions and on most evenings across all our hostels in Northern Ireland.  That is another issue under Supporting People and housing.
I thank the Member across the way, Mrs Kelly, for bringing up the women's centre childcare fund.  I know that the Minister looked at that very seriously when he was the Social Development Minister and applied to the Finance Minister for funding for that.
I know that this was emergency funding, established in 2008.  Really, at this stage, we should not be looking at emergency funding, as more concrete funding should be put in place.  We know that the absence of this funding will result in the loss of 88,000 two-hour childcare places and the loss of 33 full-time and 29 part-time jobs in the women's sector.
That is really hard to comprehend if you look at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee report that we did on women in public life and trying to encourage women to get involved in politics.  We need to look at trying to encourage women to get involved in getting back into the workplace and training for the workplace.  It is a little hypocritical of us to try to encourage women to come in and be part of this arena without looking at the needs of grass-roots women, so I make this comment again to the Minister: "Do not forget where you have come from on that one, because it is vital".
To finish, I want to look at neighbourhood renewal, which is another issue that addresses the most disadvantaged in our community.  I heard Mr Nesbitt mention something about empowerment.  I see the Committee for Social Development very much as being the Committee of empowerment.  It has empowered so many people in our community to go out to find jobs.  That is all part of the welfare reform mantra.  I very much think that we need to put that money back into investment to empower our people to have a better life and to empower our economy as well.

Bronwyn McGahan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.  Thank you for the opportunity to address the House on the important issue of the Budget 2016-17.  I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his new role.  I speak here as an MLA.
As a proactive member of the Employment and Learning Committee with a keen interest in achieving long-term economic growth for our rural communities as well as the urban centres, I welcome the commitment in the Budget to meet challenges that have been identified as key issues and challenges.  The challenges that need to be met by a new Department for the Economy include the championing of economic, social and personal development by providing relevant, high-quality learning, research and skills; increasing collaboration between business, higher education, further education and the public sector; addressing the widening higher education funding gap; the implementation of the new youth training strategy, 'Generating our Success'; the continued delivery of the higher education strategy, 'Graduating to Success'; the implementation of the new employer-led apprenticeship strategy; the implementation of a refresh strategy for the further education sector; and the continued delivery of the European social fund and secure investment for more world-class businesses.
Everyone will notice that most of the strategies I have mentioned contain the word "success".  For our Executive and political institutions to be successful in delivering social change when dealing with the real needs of our community, the capital DEL allocation must support the Department's activities and projects across a number of investment measures.  The allocation must provide funding for continual investment in higher and further education, and I welcome the new resources that are being made available for skills in the new Department for the Economy.  The proposed new Department must utilise the skills barometer that was published last November to underpin all economic models.  Our further and higher education sectors must be able to avail themselves of the skills barometer to plan for future provision, given tightened budgets.
At this point, I want to again address the need for expansion of the higher education offering at the Magee campus of the University of Ulster as an essential driver for social change in the north-west.  This important issue needs to be properly addressed once and for all.
In relation to European Union funding, the renewed and concentrated focus on research and innovation, while enhancing the competitiveness of local SME businesses via the 2014-2020 Investment for Growth and Jobs programme, is much needed.  Any new Department must have a fully functioning network of research experts to help businesses and researchers successfully compete for funding from Horizon 2020, the European Union's flagship research and innovation programme. Funding drawn down via the cross-border INTERREG programme in support of research and innovation activity must seek to facilitate growth in the number of SMEs across our region that engage in research and innovation activity on a collaborative basis, complemented with support that is focused on increased cross-border or, indeed, competence building with the life and health sciences and renewable energy sectors.
It is important that the strategic aim of the Youth Employment Scheme 2014-2020 to combat poverty and enhance social inclusion by reducing economic inactivity while increasing the skills of those currently in work and future potential participants in the workforce needs to be fully met.  The Big Conversation is still being held at the behest of the Minister for Employment and Learning, Mr Stephen Farry, in an attempt to address the funding shortfalls in skills development and employment.  We must ensure that a new funding model is developed that is not only sustainable but fair for everyone.  Skills development must be central to any future economic model. As our region has a high proportion of low-skilled citizens, which, no doubt, has an impact on the strength of our labour market as well as the wider economy, and with the North having high levels of economic inactivity, the Fresh Start Agreement commitment to tackle economic inactivity is most welcome.
I will conclude by pledging to continue to keep an eye on the roll-out of the Department's policies.  At all times, we must work to ensure equality for section 75 groupings.  Given that the right-wing Tory Government in London have slashed our block grant, we must ensure that there is no differential impact on section 75 groups.

William Irwin: I speak today as Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and will represent the views of that Committee.  The Committee has had only a very short preliminary briefing from Department of Agriculture and Rural Development officials prior to Christmas.  At that stage, the Budget details had not been agreed, so we were presented with a best case scenario by the officials.  Our next briefing on the details of the DARD budget is not until Tuesday 26 January, so I am limited in what I can say today.
I begin by pointing out a few concerns around procedures.  The timescales and the opportunity for real influence by the Committee are very limited, which may be of concern to some members.  I understand that the Finance and Personnel Committee raised this as an issue at one of its recent meetings and was informed by DFP officials that there would be scope in the June monitoring round for the new Ministers to take account of Committee representations.
The budget that the Agriculture Committee will consider next week is that which is being presented for the new Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.  However, the Committee as it is today does not have a scrutiny remit for the environmental aspects.  I understand that DARD officials will not cover the detail of that part of the budget.  Although aspects of that budget area were covered by the Environment Committee in its recent consideration of the budget, I am concerned that there is a gap.  Scrutiny of the budget is falling between two stools, and that can mean that details will be missed.  However, that aside, the concerns of the Committee with regard to the budget and the departmental finances are as they were last year.  The Committee's view is that the number one priority for DARD and the new Department should be the payment of grants to farmers and rural communities.
First and most important, the Committee has always been adamant that front-line services to farmers and the wider rural community should not be affected by cuts.  This is with particular but not exclusive reference to the new basic payment under CAP reform.  There should be, at least, a continuation of the current level of service for payments to farmers as the main priority.  The Committee noted that 95% of eligible farm businesses received their basic payments in December 2015 and that more than 1,700 cases that had been inspected were included in that number. I cannot emphasise enough how important those payments are to the farming and rural communities.  Members will be aware that all sectors face hardships from falling farm gate prices, but dairy farmers and fresh produce farmers are being particularly badly hit.  The payments are essential and are much needed by all farmers.
While I cannot speak for any incoming Minister or Committee, I can say that I firmly believe that this needs to be the number-one priority for the new Department in the new mandate.
The next point that I want to raise is how DARD and the new Department deal with the challenges of staff reductions, and the loss of their expertise, yet ensure that essential business continues as normal.  This is with particular reference to the added challenge of bringing together two very distinct work areas:  agriculture and environment.  These have very distinctive cultures and viewpoints, and we have to make sure that they are integrated and work together.  For example, the process of inspections that happens in both sectors will provide an opportunity for joint working and cooperation.  Farm inspections are an important aspect of the work of DARD and other agencies to ensure compliance with EU legislation.  The Committee is of the opinion that further work could be done to drive efficiencies in this area.  We would like to see inspecting officials coordinate their efforts to create, where possible, a scenario whereby the farmer has one visit in which all his inspections are done.
The Committee has also heard on a number of occasions that DARD intends to put more of its services and interactions with consumers online to release staff posts in the future.  We have heard about how this work uses a single application form.  We have now heard how the big issue this year with the single application forms was a lot of duplicate fields and that, in the future, it is hoped that online applications will help to identify and assess duplicate fields early, thus giving farmers a chance to rectify that.
Finally, the Committee has always expressed an interest in the budget allocation to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), as the Committee is aware of the pressures that AFBI is under, both in its resources and in coping with an ageing estate.  It has buildings and equipment that urgently need repairs and replacement and has had to reduce its staff complement and either stop or reduce research.  The Committee is fully supportive of the need to retain adequate research and development bases in Northern Ireland, and we will be examining the AFBI budget in some detail.

Edwin Poots: I thank the Member for giving way.  Is it not ironic that in a year when we were told repeatedly by the Minister that there was no funding to spend on research — Scotland for example is putting more money into research, as is the Republic of Ireland — our Department could not find money to put into research?  Over the past three years when nearly every other Department was cutting its administration costs, the Department of Agriculture was spending £5 million more on administration.

Robin Newton: The Member has an extra minute.

William Irwin: I thank the Member for his intervention.  I totally agree with the Member that research and development is vital to the future of our industry in Northern Ireland, and every effort must be made to find more finance and support for it.  As has already been said, in Scotland and Wales, the mainland, and even the Republic of Ireland, extra funding is being put into research and development.  That is vital for the future of the industry.

Oliver McMullan: Go raibh maith agat.  First of all, I congratulate the Minister on his new role and wish him well.  I am speaking on the Budget today as the party's spokesperson on agriculture.  Having looked through the Budget and the papers, I want to commend the Agriculture Minister, Michelle O'Neill.  She has, in this mandate, been unafraid to meet head-on the problems that needed to be tackled.  One of the first projects that the Minister took on was the decentralisation of DARD's headquarters to Ballykelly.  Phase one will be in 2017, with the rest in 2020.  She was the first Minister to relocate an entire Department.  We will also see the relocation of the fisheries department to south Down, the Forest Service to Fermanagh, and the Rivers Agency to the Loughry Campus.
Single farm payments, as has already been said by the Chair of the Committee, are the lifeblood of the farming industry, and without them farm businesses and, indeed, community businesses that supply farms, would simply cease trading.  The Minister inaugurated public meetings across the Six Counties in order to listen to farmers; she went out and listened to the farming industry and their families, and she promised them that she would speed up payments.  Now, we have seen 95% of farmers paid their single farm payment by Christmas.  The payments were in their banks, including, as the Chair said, nearly 1,700 cases where there had been inspections.  This is all part of the Minister's campaign to have more applications completed online.  It was recognised that a lot of the applications done by hand contained quite a lot of mistakes such as dual fields etc.  Online applications help to do away with a lot of those mistakes.
During negotiations on the new CAP programme, Minister O'Neill once again listened to the farming industry.  She secured recognition for the hill farmer and has ensured that, in future, there will be equality between the hill farmer and the lowland farmer.  There will be no two-tier system in farming.
The recent crisis in the dairy industry saw the Minister stand with the industry.  She took representatives of the industry with her to London and Brussels.  Over there, she was the only Minister who got an audience with the Commissioner.  She has shown that she has an open-door policy.  The industry was accommodated when it looked for a meeting, and she secured some sort of recognition for them.  She got £5 million for them.

Dolores Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Oliver McMullan: She has secured over £600 million for the —

Dolores Kelly: Will the Member give way?

Oliver McMullan: No, I will not.  Your party did not give way to anybody.  She secured over £600 million for the rural development programme.  I have to say that, within the Budget, I recognise that the A5 and A6 road schemes represent major infrastructure that will help to grow the economy and the farming industry.  This could all lead to an all-Ireland economy.  Indeed, I have to mention the A8, which Minister McIlveen opened recently.  That will be a big help too because of the volume of agricultural exports that leaves Larne harbour.
One of the major things that the Minister did was to introduce, through her Department and as part of the Programme for Government, the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) programme.  That was also mentioned in the rural White Paper, and it was a big thing for rural areas.  It involved quite a lot of the community groups in rural areas and showed up a lot of the things that were missing from rural areas.  While in his previous post, I spoke to the Minister about social housing.  That was one of the things that came up through the maximising access in rural areas (MARA) project in the TRPSI programme.  One of the good things was that, for the first time, we had local people doing local work.  Those are the people who identified the programmes.  The whole programme levered down something like £3 million.  There was recognition of fuel poverty, the boiler replacement scheme, welfare etc.  Within that as well, we had £10 million set aside for rural tourism.  Some £5 million went into forestry in my own area.
In finishing, I say to the Minister that, within my area of east Antrim, we have the lowest per capita investment from Invest NI in any of the programmes for small to medium-sized enterprises, some of which are aligned to the farming industry.  That needs to be worked at.  We are short of social housing.  A lot of initiatives were taken through the TRPSI programme.  If anybody needs any information on rural deprivation, the MARA project has it sitting there.  I ask the Minister to ask his Department to look at that because it could save money in the long run.  The information on how we can regenerate the rural economy is sitting there.
Once again, I congratulate Minister O'Neill.  When the mandate is over, she will be recognised as a Minister who listened to the agriculture community and got things done.

Robin Newton: Before I call Mr Lyons, let me say that it has now become quite evident that not all those on the speaking list will get the opportunity to speak.  I want to inform the House of that.

Gordon Lyons: I congratulate the Minister on the Budget that he has brought to the House.  However, I feel that I should give not just him all the congratulations and plaudits; obviously, the First Minister played a big role.  The Minister is familiar with scripture.  In scripture it says, "One sows and another reaps".  Perhaps that is what we have in front of us today, but the sower and the reaper rejoice together.
I think that we have a very good Budget here.  I will speak to a few things that have been said by other Members.  The first came from Ms Claire Hanna, a Member for South Belfast.  She had a bit of an issue with the Budget.  She said that it was not balanced, and she took great exception to the fact that there was borrowing in it.  She is getting up on her hind legs; I will certainly give her the opportunity to come back on that.

Claire Hanna: Is it in order to quote from a conversation that happened in the canteen, rather than in the Chamber?  I stand by what I said:  it is not balanced but is based almost entirely on borrowing.  It stretches the term.  In case anybody checks Hansard, let me say that that was a conversation over the cauliflower cheese.

Gordon Lyons: I certainly was not referring to that conversation — you gave yourself away there.  I was referring to what you said in the Chamber when you said that there was a lot of borrowing in the Budget.  When we look at how the Budget balances, we see that there is no overcommitment for the first time in seven years.  That is the first reason why I do not think the Budget is unbalanced.
The second issue is borrowing.  That is what the Member was referring to and what I was talking about when she made her comments.  Yes, there is borrowing in this, but there has been borrowing in every single year since it was allowed under this initiative in 2003.  As my colleague said, that was brought in by the SDLP.  The leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, who is not here any longer, said, "That was a long time ago".  Yes, it was a long time ago, but either you realise that there needs to be investment and that we need borrowing or you do not.  Borrowing is important when you are using it to invest in public services and want to invest in capital projects.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons: Yes, I will.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Mr Nesbitt said that our debt costs us £60 million a year to service out of an £11·5 billion Budget.  Does the Member accept that that is wholly manageable and that any other £11·5 billion organisation or Government would be very comfortable to have debt that requires £60 million a year to service?

Gordon Lyons: That was the point I was about to come to.  When you look at the figures, you see that we have always had borrowing.  That is important for investment.  The costs are all laid out.  So, yes, there is more borrowing this year, but a large part of it is because of the voluntary exit scheme.  We heard the figures for that already.  There will be a cost of £183 million, but in the first year we will save £160 million and £160 million the year after that and so on.  In 14 months we will have it repaid.  I think that is a good investment.
I regularly hear people in the Chamber saying that we have underinvestment in Northern Ireland and that we need investment here, there and everywhere.  So, when we have this investment, it should be welcomed.  I want to ask all those Members who are opposed to the borrowing and to the investment to put up their hand.  Put up your hand if you are against investing in a hospital for mothers and children or if you are against investing in the Belfast transport hub.  Are any Members going to put up their hand and say that they are opposed to investment in regional stadia or in the A6?  No Members are prepared or willing to say, "I am against the investment", but it is very easy to say, "I am against borrowing. I don't like that."  We need a little bit of realism.

Edwin Poots: Will the Member give way?

Gordon Lyons: I will give way to the Member.

Edwin Poots: It is interesting to hear lectures on fiscal responsibility from Mr Nesbitt, given that his party held one Department in the Executive before it ran away.  That Department managed to run up an overspend of £11·8 million on around £350 million of resource.  If that were extrapolated across the entire Budget that we are spending, it would be an overspend of £350 million, which makes the £60 million that he is referring to pale into insignificance.  Fiscal responsibility is not an area on which Mr Nesbitt and his party can speak well.

Gordon Lyons: I agree with what the Member says.  I should move on because time is running out, and I still have a lot to say.
Another criticism — I think that this came from Ms Hanna again, but apologies if it did not — was that the Budget is not strategic enough.  Obviously, there is a difference with capital spend, whereby you can allow for some of the strategic projects that you want.  However, a lot of the money that we will be spending is resource, and you are talking about a very different issue there when you come to strategic spend.
This is a one-year Budget.  If we had produced a four-year Budget, Members would be complaining that we were tying the hands of the next Executive.  In fact, Mrs Dobson was even upset by the fact that we are doing a one-year Budget.  She thinks that that should be left up to the next Assembly.  She wants a three-month Budget to cover the period up to the election.  This Assembly is setting the next Assembly's Budget, and she has a problem with that.
A lot of Members talked about the cuts that we are facing, but we have to be realistic.  The worst-case scenario outlined to us was a 10% cut, and, thankfully, that has not materialised.  It is a 5·7% cut that a lot of Departments are facing, but we have to face up to the economic reality that we find ourselves in.  Unless you are prepared to raise revenue — I heard comments from Mr Hazzard of Sinn Féin about raising revenue, and I do not want to go down that path — savings have to be made elsewhere.  I challenged Mrs Dobson to outline where she would cut in order to pay for some of the things that she wants.  Her response was that I had not been here long enough, and that, if I had been here a little longer, I would be better informed.  That is not much of an answer.
We have helped to protect health.  We have helped to protect education.  We have helped to protect the police budget, which is not facing the same reductions as elsewhere.  If Members are going to come to this place and say that we need to spend more and have more investment, they better come and tell us how they will spend it.  This Budget provides for additional flexibilities and more monitoring rounds, which will help as a result of the departmental changes.  However, I support the Budget because, overall, it is good.

Robin Newton: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Gordon Lyons: This Budget protects the things that we are concerned about.  Its priorities are our priorities, and those priorities are the priorities of the people whom we represent.  I support the Budget.

Patsy McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.  The 2016-17 Budget document states:
"The establishment of the new Department for the Economy presents an excellent opportunity to deliver key economic development policies in a collaborative, cohesive and targeted manner."
The PwC economic outlook report of 2015 states that our local economy has been characterised traditionally as a job creation economy rather an economy driven by productivity.  That suggests that we have been able to create jobs despite productivity levels being low.  Educational underachievement is ever-present.  The OECD international comparison study of last year shows that, in the North, academic ability among 16- and 17-year-olds is among the lowest in the United Kingdom and that wealth generation options are relatively low due to the size of our private sector.  Our private sector accounts for only one third of our total economic output.  As a result, as we are all aware, a heavy burden is placed on the public sector.  Given that the financial outlook in the United Kingdom is gradually getting worse, the North's low-wage and low-skill economy is not best equipped to perform well and create prosperity.  That is a major challenge for us.
The projected 5·7% maximum cuts, as outlined by Minister Foster last December, will not impact on the Department for the Economy (DFE) in the same way as other Departments.  That is not to say that it will not suffer from financial losses; there is a 3% cut to non-ring-fenced resource DEL.  On inspection, it appears that that large cut may be reflective of the fact that the employment services provided by the old Department for Employment and Learning will not be within the remit of DFE.  Employment services provided to those who struggle to obtain work will be transferred, as we know, to the Department for Communities.  That may have been the reason for the cuts.
The budget for higher education has been cut by just under £12 million.  That is significant and substantial.  This excerpt is lifted directly from the 2016-17 Budget document:
"Over the last number of years, a clear funding gap has emerged and widened between our own universities and those in other parts of these islands.  With tuition fees frozen and grant funding reducing, we have been overseeing a reduction in the unit funding provided per student.  The challenge for Northern Ireland universities is to compete in a very competitive global higher education marketplace.  If we cannot maintain competitive funding levels, the quality of provision in Northern Ireland will diminish in relation to other parts of the UK and we will end up with a second rate higher education system."
That is a key element of the Budget and the main focus for cuts within the budgetary remit of DFE.  Much has been made today of the opportunities that exist through additional corporation tax powers.  If we do not have the skills to match the FDIs that are coming here, or those that potentially might come here, we have a significant and substantial problem.  If we are not investing in those —

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Will the Member give way?

Patsy McGlone: Yes.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: None of us is happy with any cut at all to third-level education.  Does the Member agree with me that it would be wrong to increase tuition fees as some of those who are loudest in their condemnation of the challenges that we face in asking for more money for universities suggest.  That has been put forward as one of the solutions at this time.  We need to freeze tuition fees while trying to get more money for our universities.

Patsy McGlone: The last thing that you want to do is penalise people and make it more difficult for them to access education.  Fundamentally, from the SDLP's point of view, education is a liberator.  It frees things up.  It allows people to advance themselves, their families and their communities.  Historically, that has been the case, so we certainly do not want to leave people feeling that they are less able to access education and the form of economic and social liberation that education brings with it.  Go raibh maith agat as sin, a Mháirtín.
There are key issues and elements.  A significant reduction in non-ring-fenced resource DEL is apparent in the Invest NI and tourism bracket of the Budget; there is a £10 million reduction.  Will that reduction in non-ring-fenced DEL be appropriately supplemented by capital and additional allocations, as mentioned in the Stormont House Agreement?  The figures and facts have to be returned to us.  We spoke with officials today at the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Committee.  They did not have access to the level of detail as to what the budgetary commitments were for Invest NI or Tourism NI, specifically around job creation.  How much has been committed?  How much leverage is left?  How much financial elbow room is left for job creation?  That is a key element that we need to know.  Tied in with corporation tax, and any potential that arises from it, will be the capacity of Invest NI to respond to requirements of FDIs and the capacity to have an economic environment and skill set here that matches the requirements of those FDIs.  That is crucial in the context of corporation tax.  Nobody has ever said that it is a silver bullet.  We want to make sure that, whatever type of bullet it is, the other aspects of what can make it work will be there through the appropriate investment.
A very key aspect that has not been looked at or mentioned is Brexit.  What do I mean by that?  From 2007 to 2013, we have had investment here of £2·4 billion.  I have just caught up on some figures.  In the 2014-2020 programme of EU funding, there is the potential to realise €229 million under one of the EU programmes.  Under INTERREG, there is another €240 million.
With that comes the potential to realise €40 million and €42 million respectively in match funding.  Has any consideration been given to or any assessment made at departmental level of the potential impact of the loss of that funding?  Mr McMullan referred to the number of people who avail themselves of such payments for the success of their farming business.  I had an Assembly question for written answer responded to today.  The number of people who availed themselves of the basic farm payment or whose farms are eligible for the payment as businesses is 22,213.
The output of the Northern Ireland economy is estimated to be £33 billion per annum.  Research shows that a Brexit —

Robin Newton: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Patsy McGlone: — could lead to a 3% fall, which is £1 billion per annum to the Northern economy.  I ask the Minister whether an assessment has been done of how the drop in funds that a Brexit would bring about would impact on budgets.

Jim Allister: Thank you.  Is it not a commentary in itself that the Minister and his partners trumpet as a success the fact that they have been able to produce a Budget?  That is supposed to be the work of government.  It is standard.  If, last year, they were playing with fantasy budgets, I suppose that where we have got to this year might seem to them like success,.  However, it is a commentary on the situation.
We are fast approaching the end of this period of the current Executive.  It is therefore an appropriate time to reflect on some of the promises that they made and some of the things that they said at the start of their period in office in 2011.  Then, they made the economy the top priority.  They pledged to rebuild and rebalance the Northern Ireland economy.  Now is an apt time to ask, "How's it been going?". After five years, our GDP growth is the lowest in the United Kingdom.  In 2015, it was1·6%, against a 2·4% UK average.  We have less than half the percentage growth in gross value added of Scotland.  In fact, since 2012, our gross value added per head of population has fallen.  In productivity, we have underachieved compared with the UK average.  The Executive have presided over a Northern Ireland that is the least productive part of the whole of the United Kingdom, at only 82% of the UK average.  Of course, it is by investing in infrastructure and skills, as, I think, Professor Johnston had the temerity to observe, that we can address those issues.
Maybe the biggest indictment of all is the ignominy of having the highest level of economic inactivity in the United Kingdom.  A staggering 27·7% of the working-age population were inactive in 2015 — that under an Executive whose priority was to rebuild and rebalance the economy and despite a specific Programme for Government commitment to reduce economic inactivity.  Yes, a strategy to address economic inactivity was announced by Dr Farry in, I think, April last year, but it seems to be unfunded.  Where is the money for it in the Budget?  It is in that context that, this year, we will take £100 million out of the block grant to meet the demands of some of those on welfare.  Welfare reform might have had the edge of incentivising more people into work, but what we will do here in Northern Ireland is blunt that incentivisation by propping up benefit levels above those of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Then we come to the level of debt.  The unelected Member for East Antrim might be very blasé about the level of debt in this part of the United Kingdom, but, just before the Executive took office in 2011, our National Loans Fund borrowing was £36·9 million.  In this Budget, it is projected to be £357 million — an almost tenfold multiplication.  Borrowing by this small country is to be £2·1 billion, giving us the highest level of borrowing per head of the population in all the devolved regions.  That is on top of our part of the national borrowing.  That £2·1 billion is up from £1·9 billion last year, and we are paying interest.  Mr Ó Muilleoir tells us that that is a good thing.  I will take no lectures from the party of squander, which has every interest in bankrupting Northern Ireland, about how it is a good thing to be in that amount of debt.  It is a burden for this and future generations that has been imposed by the failing Executive.
There are parts of the Budget that totally defy any attempt at transparency.  I raised one of them with Mr Weir.  Is it not a marvel that we can produce a budget line of £1·9 billion for education and even the Finance Minister does not know what the breakdown is, never mind the House?  We are not told the composition of the £1·9 billion budget that is going into schools.  How much is going into the primary sector, the post-primary sector, the controlled sector, the maintained sector, the Irish-medium sector and so on?  No one knows.  No one is allowed to know.

Robin Newton: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Jim Allister: No one is allowed to know, and the Education Minister gets away with a blanket budget line of £1·9 billion.
Mr McGlone is worried about Brexit.  He is worried about our getting back some of our own money.  Brexit would be a liberation for this part of the United Kingdom, like the rest.

Steven Agnew: When U2 played in Belfast recently, Radio Ulster replayed its documentary on the gig that U2 did with Ash in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement.  I was interviewed for that programme.  It was before I was a politician, and I was one of the young people in the crowd, thanks, I have to say, to tickets I got courtesy of the SDLP — thank you very much for that, guys. I listened again to that interview, in which I talked of my excitement both at the gig and at the chance of a peace agreement for Northern Ireland.  I look at where I am now and look back to that 18-year-old and wonder, "Well, what would he make of it?".
I cannot speak for all the other young people who were there that day, but I can speak for myself. There were two hopes.  There was the hope of peace.  We have a relatively strong peace.  It is not perfect — we still have paramilitaries attacking people, including in my community — but it is relatively strong. The other hope was for good governance and that we could have something better for Northern Ireland and would not have Ministers flying back and forth from England who knew little about the place.  I remember one being made Minister with responsibility for young people in Northern Ireland, and he said, "I am an old man, so I am not young, and this is my first time in Northern Ireland". That just about summed up the old situation.  That hope and that opportunity have been wasted, and that waste can be seen in this Budget. For all the talk of not implementing Tory cuts, this is the implementation of DUP/Sinn Féin cuts.  These are cuts made in Northern Ireland.  It is a 100%-cuts Budget.  I criticise the Tories as much as anyone and look forward to the day when they are out of government, but even they recognise that you have to raise revenue in places.  They do not go as far as I would like, but they recognise that revenue raising is half of the equation of balancing the books.  There is no mention or consideration of revenue raising in this Budget.  Groups as diverse as the CBI and NICVA have lobbied for the Government to consider revenue-raising measures, yet, again, the opportunity to do that has been wasted.
Take a look at something like welfare mitigation.  Much has been said about the Minister not forgetting where he came from, and he will know my views on welfare well.  We had a £585 million fund agreed as part of — I always forget the name — the Fresh Start Agreement, and we are raiding £30 million from it.  We are raiding £30 million from the fund that we set up to protect the most vulnerable in our society — those on the lowest incomes.  Today, we hear reports on the Evason proposals, and I have yet to see the detail of that.  It has been reported, incorrectly in my view, that she has underspent, but, if the proposal is, as it appears to be, to raid £30 million per year from the mitigation fund, Evason's proposals will be unaffordable.  We will be £40 million short.  I will be interested to hear from the Minister what that will look like.  Does that mean that the Evason proposals are unaffordable?  By my calculations, that seems to be the case.
At the same time as we are raiding welfare and even in the straitened financial times when we hear about the difficulties in the health service and everything else, we maintain the cap on rates, meaning that those in modest houses continue to subsidise those in million-pound mansions.  In my constituency, that means that those in Kilcooley estate subsidise the rates of those who own an estate in Cultra.  You could make that argument about any part of my constituency.  That is unfair and unjust, and it is a disgrace that, at a time when we have limited public funds, we do not lift the cap on rates and use the one real lever that we have to raise revenue, make it progressive and make sure that those who can afford to pay more when times are difficult actually pay more.  The rates have effectively been frozen, and it would be irresponsible to put them up while we maintain a system whereby those in smaller homes subsidise those in larger properties.  It is a waste of our devolution, a waste of the limited powers that we have and a waste of the goodwill that we built up in 1998, which has been gradually dissipating as people become disillusioned with some of the decisions being made by the Executive.
Effectively, Northern Ireland is like a child being given an allowance.  We are half a Government.  Government is about tax and spend, but we just spend for fear of being unpopular, the irony being that I do not think that this Assembly and Executive have ever been more unpopular.  So, in our attempts to please everybody, we are pleasing nobody.
It is time that we step up and mature.  Reference was made to Scotland, where we can see —

Robin Newton: I ask the Member to conclude his remarks.

Steven Agnew: — the potential of devolution.  We need to be a mature, responsible Government and look at ways that we can raise income so that we can invest in this society instead of wasting the potential of devolution.

Edwin Poots: It has been an interesting debate.  I have been able to enjoy quite long periods of it.  It is interesting from the point of view that what we are seeing around the Chamber from a series of parties is playground politics.  The SDLP is in but does not really want to be in, so it is going to oppose from within.  The Ulster Unionists were in and then, after four and a half years, decided to go into opposition.  Really, that is just a hypocritical stance.
In fairness to Mr Allister, he has been in opposition from the start, so we are used to his carping and so forth.  At least he has been consistent, I grant him that, albeit he is often wrong.  Nonetheless, he is consistent with it.
The Ulster Unionists in particular today, in my view, are only letting themselves down and demonstrating that, when they go to the country in three months' time, they are not fit for governance.  They do not know whether they want to be in the Government or not, but they certainly demonstrated today that they are not fit for government.
Mr Nesbitt, for example, compares our growth to that of the Republic of Ireland.  Does he want us to be in the same circumstances as the Republic of Ireland, where unemployment is almost 10% as against just over 6% in Northern Ireland?  That is a reasonable question to ask of the Ulster Unionists.  If you want to compare us with our neighbours and say, "Oh, how much better the Government are in the Republic of Ireland than they are here", their unemployment is considerably higher than here.  Northern Ireland has benefited from growth in employment month after month after month because investment has been made in it.
We have come through one of the most difficult periods of politics in Northern Ireland as a result of the stand-off over welfare.  When I hear parties like the SDLP criticising, for example, spending on health, I think of when the SDLP was joined with Sinn Féin, the Green Party and others in blocking welfare reform and handing £10 million a month back to the Westminster Government —

Patsy McGlone: Will the Member give way?

Edwin Poots: I will give way, Mr McGlone.
— and then complaining because waiting lists go up.  Of course waiting lists are going up because you are starving the health service of the money to give it to welfare.

Patsy McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way, and I appreciate the point that he is making — as ever, very openly.  That is one thing.  However, will the Member accept that to condemn the Tories for awful and catastrophic welfare reform and then to hand the power right back to those Tories over welfare reform really goes from the sublime to the utterly ridiculous?

Robin Newton: The Member has an extra minute.

Edwin Poots: Thank you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker.
As the Member well knows, we brought the legislation before this House to deal with it in this House.  It was his party that signed a petition of concern, along with Sinn Féin and others, to block it going through.  Had the SDLP decided not to sign, there may well not have been enough people for the petition of concern and that would have allowed us to debate the matter and have a majority vote in this House.  However, a petition of concern was chosen to block those decisions from taking place.
I heard Mr Allister criticise what we did here.  I make no apology whatsoever for not introducing the bedroom tax.  I make no apology for refining the proposals that came from Westminster and not adopting them carte blanche, because there are many aspects of welfare that did need refinement and many aspects that would not have made fiscal sense, particularly in Northern Ireland, where we do not have the housing available to have one-bedroom units for so many people.  It would have been a false economy to move forward on that.

Gordon Lyons: I thank the Member for giving way.  The Member Mr McGlone mentions what he thinks is ridiculous.  Will the Member agree that what is actually ridiculous is the SDLP calling for £600 million of Barnett consequentials to be spent, when that is, maybe, not even going to be available to us for the next four years?  Is it not ridiculous for the SDLP to say that the numbers do not add up for the flagship projects, when that comes out of capital spend as well as the money that has been borrowed?  Is it not ridiculous for Mrs Dobson of the Ulster Unionist Party to say that she cannot add up the sums and that when I challenge her about adding up the sums for all of the extra spending she says that it is simply because I have not been in this place for long enough to understand?

Robin Newton: I remind the Member that interventions should be short and to the point.

Edwin Poots: Last year, we had the accusation of a fantasy Budget, and, today, we have had a series of fantasy Budgets.  I am thankful that it is Mr Storey who is the Finance Minister and not the people who have been up and passing comment on the Budget that is being presented to the House, because what they have been saying is the stuff of fantasy.
The Ulster Unionists and the SDLP in particular today have produced all sorts of figures without any basis.  They have been saying, "We will grab a few pounds from SIF".  I know that in my constituency we are about to spend around £2 million of SIF money.  That will be money well spent because we have engaged with the local community.  We are working extensively with the local community on addressing educational underachievement, on tackling the problems in early years and going to the heart of those core problems.  Those are problems that will exist in 20 years' time if we do not tackle them now.  There are children who are being born now who will be destined for unemployment and all sorts of problems if we do not address those issues.  That is what we are doing through SIF funding.  That is not money that is wasted.  That is not money on pet projects.  That is money that is well spent and invested in our future.
I believe that our universities need to be getting more support than is currently the case, and I think that there are issues that need to be addressed.  If we blindly look at the circumstances we are putting our universities in at this time without addressing the fundamentals, then we are going to send lots of young people across to England to pay high tuition fees, and we will potentially lose them from Northern Ireland.  There is an issue that needs to be challenged and an issue that we all need to get our heads around and address.
I congratulate the Minister on giving additional money to Health.  I congratulate him on finding additional money for policing on core front-line services, and I commend the Budget to the House.  I commend the Minister and, indeed, his predecessor, for the hard work that they have done in bringing it forward.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Members and the Committee Chairs for their participation in the debate.  I thank the Members who were supportive of the Budget proposals for their input.  However, I am not surprised that there are those who are still politically confused in relation to what their real place is in the House, given that we have the SDLP adopting the position it has adopted.  It will vote against the Budget, and we have the Alliance Party and the Ulster Unionist Party doing the same.  I will come on to some of those issues in a moment.
As I am just in post, it was worthwhile to hear the variety of issues that Members raised.  Some have been raised over the last few hours with sincerity and with genuineness, but I have to say that there are others who have only been taking part in cheap political point-scoring.  There has been little of substance to some of the comments that have been made.  It is very easy to be in a place when you have no decisions to make.  It is easy to walk out and to carp from the sides when you do not have decisions to make.
This party has ensured that we have taken hard decisions.  We have ensured that we have moved from the position that we were in a few months ago when these institutions were ready to collapse and we were ready to see the end of devolution.  There are some in the House who think that that is what they would like, but they have changed their position because now they are quite happy to be here and to take their place in the Chamber.  In fact, they are even encouraging candidates to stand for election to this House.  That is an easy and simple position to adopt.
Let us go to the substance — if, in some cases, there was any substance — of some of the things that Members said.  I want to make this point as I commence:  let us remember where we started with the financial position and the Budget.  We started with a shortfall of some £175 million.  It was not an easy task to move away from that position to a place where, as one of my colleagues reminded us, we have a Budget that does not have an overcommitment.  That is a changed position over the last seven years.
Let me turn to Members' comments.  I will endeavour to go through some of them but I will not answer them all.  Some are, I think, best left to Hansard rather than being given an answer.  I will give answers to those where, I believe, genuine issues were raised.
Let me turn first to the Committee Chair.  He referred to the memorandum of understanding on the Budget.  I understand that my officials have been working with the Committee on that, and I welcome that progress has been made.  I also welcome any work that provides realistic improvements to the Budget process and look forward to the development of a memorandum of understanding that can adapt the Budget process and the circumstances that are outside the control of the Executive.
The Chair also referred to getting a fair deal on corporation tax and air passenger duty.  In working towards an agreement with Her Majesty's Treasury on air passenger duty and corporation tax, it is vital that any arrangements represent a fair deal for Northern Ireland.  On the issue of air passenger duty, I have made it very clear that we should not be in the business of creating a sun subsidy.  It has to be on the basis of ensuring that we identify strategic economic routes that will be of benefit to Northern Ireland, and we have to keep that issue to the fore.  My officials will continue to liaise closely with Her Majesty's Treasury on those issues to ensure that any agreement represents the best outcome for Northern Ireland.
The Member also raised the issue of the spending review's timing.  Indeed, he was correct to say that my predecessor, along with her devolved colleagues, expressed serious reservations to the Chief Secretary of the Treasury about the matter.  I will continue to press for a more realistic time frame for subsequent spending reviews for any other person who holds this post after the May elections.
Let me turn to the comments made by Claire Hanna and Colum Eastwood.  It is sad that, yet again, the SDLP comes to the House and is inaccurate in what it says about the impact on policing.  We all value and need our Police Service.  What the Members said about the policing budget is simply not the case.  This Budget sees a reduction to the policing budget limited to 2%, compared with the 5·7% reductions facing unprotected baselines.  The reduction to the police budget equates to some £13·8 million.  That is based on the opening 2015-16 position.  So, when compared to the PSNI's in-year easement of some £26 million, it is clear that that should be achievable.  In addition — the Chair of the Justice Committee referred to this — the PSNI has received some £32 million of additional funding in relation to national security issues.  Therefore, rather than ignoring the pressures, we have endeavoured, in challenging circumstances, to address them.
They also raised the issue of the RRI borrowing.  A number of Members raised that particular issue.  From accusations of maxing out RRI borrowing to criticism for using it for voluntary exit schemes, there have also been a number of inaccurate figures quoted, and not for the first time, I have to say, when it comes to dealing with Budget issues.  The Budget document provides significant detail on RRI borrowing, so the figures should be clear.  We are not approaching £3 billion of debt.  The projected figure for 2016-17 is £2·1 billion.  Although significant, that reflects the infrastructure deficit that the Executive have had to address.
Sometimes, Members in the House seem to forget where we came from in relation to the infrastructure deficit that we face.  The use of borrowing for the voluntary exit scheme allows for significant reform of the public sector.  It also represents value for money.  Let us remember that we were all told by Members how we have to rebalance the economy because we have an overdependence on the public sector.  Then, when you bring about a scheme and a means whereby we can achieve that, we are criticised and it is not the right thing to do.

Patsy McGlone: Will the Minister give way?

Mervyn Storey: No, I am not going to give way because I want to make this point.  Some have questioned my qualification to hold this post.  I see that some comments were made in relation to that.  Let us have a lesson in mathematics.  One hundred million pounds of RRI borrowing costs £3 million to £4 million per annum to service, yet that amount spent on the voluntary exit scheme releases over £50 million per annum, meaning the schemes will pay for themselves over a short period of time.  Indeed, in 2015-16, the £183 million invested in the scheme will release £149 million in annual savings going forward.  So, it is clear to see that those schemes quickly pay for themselves.  But, no, some Members just want to say that it is a bad idea.  They should tell those in their constituencies who have been able to access the scheme that it was a bad idea.

Patsy McGlone: Will the Minister give way?

Mervyn Storey: No, I am not going to give way because there are still things that I want to say, and I have only 30 minutes.
There was also criticism of the impact that it would have on capital investment.  However, it must be remembered that the Stormont Agreement and the implementation plan provided for an additional £100 million for capital projects as well as an additional £50 million for shared education and housing initiatives.  Furthermore, the Executive have made the decision to use £25 million of their RRI borrowing for capital projects.  So, for borrowing, I think we have clearly seen what the benefit of that particular process is.
Let us come to Mr Nesbitt, who is not here.  He has already been wrong on the issue of borrowing.  He claimed that we had a fantasy Budget for 2015-16, and he was wrong.  What is his alternative?  Well, he wants to compare us to the Republic of Ireland.  In fact, my colleague Mr Poots stole my thunder on the issue —

Raymond McCartney: He is not here either.
[Laughter.]

Mervyn Storey: He is not here, so I can quote him anyway.  I kept looking and could not find him.
The unemployment rate in the Irish Republic is 9·7%.  In Northern Ireland, it is just 6%.  Here we have someone who also overlooks the fact that, at the end of December 2015, we had created 39,000 new jobs.  Are we going to dismiss that?  Are we going to say that it is not important and is something that you can just set aside?  I do not think that is the case.  Let us then remember, of course, what Mr Nesbitt said when he said that he feared that the rumours are true and that there will be anything from £500 million to £800 million of additional borrowing.  I think those comments stand in stark contrast to the reality of the situation.
Let me turn to the list of questions that Mr Cree had.  He gave us a list that I think he deserves answers to because he asked questions that were relevant and pertinent to the issue.  He mentioned financial transactions capital.  He should have known from the Finance Committee that all FTC to date has been spent, with no funds being returned to Her Majesty's Treasury.  Indeed, when I was the Minister for Social Development, I was pleased to be able to allocate a considerable amount of money to co-ownership.  I think that co-ownership has been the beneficiary of FTC, and that has helped to deliver affordable housing.  I was interested in seeing that we made progress on that.
In addition, I can confirm that the Northern Ireland investment fund is expected to become operational this year, and the funding previously allocated to it in 2015-16 has been redistributed to other projects.
On the June monitoring round flexibilities, I am glad that Mr Cree has recognised the difficulties surrounding the Budget.  It is because of that that the Executive have agreed that incoming Ministers will have additional flexibility in the June monitoring round.  That will allow them to reallocate funding to their priorities within the overall funding envelope set for their Department as part of the Budget.  The availability or otherwise of additional funding in the June monitoring round will not affect that flexibility.  However, it means that there is still the opportunity for Committees to influence the spending of Departments.  I think that that is a point that the Member wanted an assurance on.
In addition, the announcement by Professor Evason today means that it is clear that there will be additional funding for the Executive to consider as part of the June monitoring round process.  That will be an issue that, undoubtedly, the Executive will come back to.
Mr Lunn came to an issue that is one of concern to his party and that it has raised on numerous occasions.  That issue is the cost of division.  My Department has commissioned the Northern Ireland Centre for Economic Policy to undertake a review of the cost of division.  The study will seek to revisit the previous Deloitte work and will update the methodology and provide a contemporary assessment.  The work is well advanced, and my officials have received a draft.  I hope to present the final report to the Executive in the coming weeks.  So, I thought that it was only right that the Member was made aware of that.
Turning to another issue that Mr Cree raised, depreciation, I assure him that I am not expecting any nasty surprises with the ring-fenced resource DEL budget.  The Executive have a significant Budget allocation for non-cash depreciation and impairment costs that is more than adequate to cover departmental requirements.
Mr Lunn referred to the social investment fund.  He queried the use of the social investment fund to provide training for young people.  The Budget for 2016-17 has maintained the level of funding available to the Executive Office to take forward the central funds, which includes the social investment fund and the childcare strategy.  Some £14 million resource DEL and £15 million capital DEL are available in 2016-17 under the Delivering Social Change banner.  OFMDFM's social investment fund has made significant progress, with commitments in the region of £58 million and delivery of 25 projects now well under way.  Seven projects are now operational, with others expected to follow in the coming months.  It is a point that was made by one of my colleagues:  go to those organisations and locations where they have identified issues such as educational underachievement and social problems in their community and tell them that SIF was a bad idea.
Tell them that it was not the right thing to do.  I think that you will find, even in your constituency, Mr Lunn, that it was the right thing to do and was constructed in a way that was meant to deliver for communities.  I accept his point about the time that it has taken.  However, I think that he will also appreciate that there were particular challenges in bringing all the projects forward.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
The Chair of the Health Committee raised a number of issues on the detail of the Health budget.  While I will not attempt to respond to all the issues that were raised, I assure Members that my colleague the Health Minister and I agree that health service staff are our greatest asset in delivering health and social care.  As someone who, unfortunately, has had to spend much time with my dad in hospital over the last eight months, I know well the service provided by staff in the health service, their dedication and the extreme lengths that they go to.  The debt of gratitude that we owe to all those who work in our health service is a given for us all in the House.  Whilst the Health Minister fully recognises the hard work of all the staff in health and social care and the contribution that they make, his priority — his first priority — is to protect front-line services and ensure that they are properly staffed to secure the provision of safe and effective services.
The Health Minister made a statement on 8 January that set out the 2015-16 pay award for Health and Social Care staff.  That will allow for a 1% non-consolidated payment for staff who are at the top of their pay band and an average spine point rise of 3·7% for those who are not at the top of their pay band.  Salaried doctors and dentists at the top of their pay band will also receive a 1% payment.  The Health Minister is aware of the RCN's decision to ballot its members in Northern Ireland on industrial action and is disappointed by that decision.  While members have a right to take industrial action, it is fully recognised that any such action is regrettable.  Reform is ongoing across the health and social care service, and I remind Members that Transforming Your Care is not about reducing our investment in health and social care services; it is about making the best use of the resources that are available to us.
Mr Maskey raised a technical point about the de minimis rule.  He referred to the potential difficulties with Departments having to seek Executive agreement to move funds between spending areas in excess of the de minimis level of £1 million.  That requirement has been in place for some time and is designed to ensure that funding allocations reflect the priorities of the Executive as a whole rather than those of individual Ministers.  However, in light of the complexities of departmental restructuring and the fact that new Ministers will have their priorities, the Executive have agreed that the rule will be suspended for the first monitoring round of the year.  I trust that that deals with the issue that the Member raised.
I turn to Mr Eastwood's comments about higher education funding.  I fully recognise the need to ensure that our universities remain competitive in a national and, indeed, international context and that the skills needs of our economy continue to be met.  A greater level of STEM skills will be required in future years, particularly when the lower rate of corporation tax is introduced from April 2018.  It is, therefore, important that our universities adapt to that challenge and prioritise those skills.  The Executive allocated an additional £5 million to the Department for the Economy in 2016-17 for skills development, and Members will be aware of the commitment that I gave to increase that funding to the £20 million that we have said needs to be brought forward.  That gives an indication that there is a commitment from my party and from the Executive to deal with those issues.
Anna Lo and a number of other Members referred to the strategic nature of the Budget.  The Members did not highlight the difficult time frame that the Executive faced or the difficulties involved in restructuring Executive Departments.  Members did not highlight the flagship projects and the certainty that it brings to the construction industry, although I am glad that there were Members who referred to the positive comments that have come from organisations such as the Quarry Products Association.  But then, of course, there are Members of the House who would like to dispense with that and almost deny that that was said.  However, when it is a reality, we have to face up to it. The Members also did not provide any detail of how their parties would have done things differently and still adhered to the limited budget.  It is true that the Budget will not provide funding for everything, but I have not heard any credible plans from others on how they would do things differently.
I conclude by saying that we simply need to realise that we face difficult and challenging times.  It is undoubtedly a challenge for me and for the Executive to ensure that we manage our finances in a way that delivers and continues to deliver our public services.  The public demand nothing better from us than to ensure that we keep our focus on those issues.  It is my responsibility as Finance Minister to bring to the House a balanced and sustainable Budget.  That is what I believe we have done with this Budget. However, I would like Members of the House who have been critical of the Budget this evening to say whether it is wrong that, today, we vote for an additional £133 million to the health service.  Is it wrong that we vote for an additional £40 million to the Department of Education? Is it wrong that we vote for an additional £20 million to the Department for Infrastructure for road structural maintenance, given that that issue was pathetically dealt with or not dealt with by the previous Minister? Is it wrong that, since 2012, 525 new businesses have benefited from the introduction of the empty premises rate relief?  Is it wrong that, since 2008, almost 27,000 older people have received around £35 million in rate relief through the lone pensioner allowance scheme?
I know that there are those who have talked about other tax-raising powers.  This party is a low taxation party.  Let us put the record straight on how we have provided for our community.  In Scotland the rate of taxation is £1,337 per person; in England it is £1,465 per person: and in Wales it is £1,550.  In Northern Ireland it is £842 per person. If those who want to criticise the Budget have any alternatives for how to best provide for the people of Northern Ireland, it is time they brought them to the House.
This Budget protects and provides, and it prepares Northern Ireland so that it can to continue to make progress in 2016 and beyond.  I commend the Budget to the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the vote on the motion requires cross-community support.
Question put.

The Assembly divided:
 Ayes 62; Noes 30
 AYES 
 NATIONALIST: 
 Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Ms Fearon, Mr Flanagan, Mr Hazzard, Mr G Kelly, Mr Lynch, Mr McAleer, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Ms McCorley, Mr McElduff, Ms McGahan, Mr M McGuinness, Mr McKay, Ms Maeve McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr Maskey, Mr Milne, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr Ó Muilleoir, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Ruane, Mr Sheehan
 UNIONIST: 
 Mr Anderson, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Mr Buchanan, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Craig, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Lyons, Mr McCausland, Mr I McCrea, Mr D McIlveen, Miss M McIlveen, Mr McQuillan, Mr Middleton, Lord Morrow, Mr Moutray, Mrs Pengelly, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr P Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Storey, Mr Weir
 Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McQuillan, Mr G Robinson
 NOES 
 NATIONALIST: 
 Mr Attwood, Mr Diver, Mr Eastwood, Ms Hanna, Mrs D Kelly, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McKinney, Mr A Maginness, Mr Rogers
 UNIONIST: 
 Mr Allen, Mr Allister, Mr Beggs, Mr Cochrane-Watson, Mrs Dobson, Mr Hussey, Mr Kennedy, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Mr McGimpsey, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Ms Sugden, Mr Swann
 OTHER: 
 Mr Agnew, Mr Dickson, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCarthy
 Tellers for the Noes: Mr Lunn, Mr McCrossan
Total Votes92Total Ayes62[67.4%]Nationalist Votes39Nationalist Ayes28[71.8%]Unionist Votes48Unionist Ayes34[70.8%]Other Votes5Other Ayes0[0.0%]
Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):
That this Assembly approves the programme of expenditure proposals for 2016-17 as announced by the Minister of Finance and Personnel on 17 December 2015 and set out in the Budget document laid before the Assembly on 13 January 2016.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Motion made:

That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker.]

Adjournment

Stormont Estate

Mr Speaker: Order.  I ask Members who are leaving to do so quietly.
The proposer of the topic will have 15 minutes.  All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately 10 minutes.

Robin Newton: Mr Speaker, I thank you for being here this evening.  I know that you had other choices that you could have made, so I am grateful to you.  I also thank the Minister for staying behind for an Adjournment debate, given the pressures that he has been under today, the very serious matters that have been debated in relation to the Budget and the time that he was in the Chamber.  I am grateful to him for staying behind to talk about what is essentially a constituency matter — or at least that is how it is perceived.  However, I do not believe that the use of Stormont estate is something that can be confined to east Belfast.  I believe that it is a jewel in the crown of east Belfast, Belfast and Northern Ireland as a whole.
I want to pay tribute to the ground staff and the rangers who look after the estate.  I pay tribute to their skill, knowledge of the estate and commitment.  As a frequent user of the estate, I have spoken to them and know that, for many of them, the commitment to the work that they do goes beyond just doing their daily job.  It is something that they have a fondness for.  Indeed, the grounds are an asset and a feature of our life, certainly in Belfast.  They contribute in many ways to the quality of life in this locale.
I will say a few things about the history, the potential and the uniqueness of the grounds.  I do not think that there are any other seats of a Government that have such a magnificent setting.  Nor do I believe that there are any other seats of a Government that have been attributed green flag status, which reflects the park-type quality of these grounds.  However, I believe that more could be done to fully realise the potential of the Stormont estate.  I recognise that this is a working estate.  It is where people come five days a week — some of them, six days a week — to do business.  It is also a through-traffic estate.  Sometimes, it is like a huge car park, given the nature and the interest of what is on in the Chamber.
Let us reflect on the fact that, when the Assembly got under way, we did not have the opening up of Parliament Buildings as we do today.  That we have that today is in many ways thanks to the work of the Speaker's Office.  It is very much about the professional way in which the educational unit deals with our schoolchildren.  Those tours and the educational work contribute very much to the well-being, the feeling and the use of the Building — to an aspect of life in Northern Ireland.
I will take what is happening inside the Building and reflect on what might happen on the outside of the Building in the grounds of the estate.  We all know about the history and features of the site, or we should do.
Mr Douglas and I were at a meeting on Friday night.  I have been surprised at the interest that the title "Use of the Stormont Estate" has had.  It was raised with us on Friday night.  When asking how many people could identify features of the grounds, only two out of a group of 40 had any real knowledge of the grounds of Stormont.  These grounds contain many historical features.  How many people know about Craigavon's tomb being in the grounds of Stormont?  There are not that many.  How many people know about the bomb site, where the German bombers got closest to bombing this place?  How many people have actually looked at it and reflected on that?
Carson's statue is the dominant feature of the estate, but how many people know about the Reconciliation statue and its history?  Although it is featured in publications put out by the Assembly, how many people know that it was originally created as the sculpture of a man and woman embracing across barbed wire to depict the inspiration for peace?  The sculpture was originally conceived in the aftermath of the war.  How many people know about that statue and its impact and importance in not only a Northern Ireland context but a much wider context?
The wildlife on the estate is also important.  It presents an opportunity for our schoolchildren and the Scouts, the Boys Brigade, the Girl Guides and all those types of organisations.  The wildlife includes a wide variety of birds.  An otter was spotted on the estate recently.  Work is being done to protect the red squirrels on the estate.  All of this is of interest to young people as part of their education, whether in school or youth groups.  There are also the strawberry trees, the flora and the most predominant feature, the line of trees up the mile, which are now around 80 years of age.
We can also look at the importance of The Gleaner statue.  It stands nearly as a contrast.  The Gleaner sculpture is by John Knox — I do not think that is the John Knox of Protestant historical importance — who originally exhibited it as part of the 1951 Festival of Britain.  The sculpture shows a woman on bended knee gathering, with the inscription:
"Thrift is the gleaner behind all human effort".
It has been there since 1951, having come from that exhibition.  We are now in 2016, which has importance from many perspectives.  How many people, whether formally or informally, visit the Battle of the Somme granite stone that is placed with a group of six cedar trees and bears the following inscription?
"This group of cedars presented in memory of the 36th Ulster Division by Major General Sir C. Herbert Powell K.C.B. who raised it in 1914".
That is a significant feature of the history of this Province.
There are many important aspects.
Turning to the Mo Mowlam Children's Park, I did not agree with a lot of Ms Mowlam's politics, but she has left a legacy in the Estate in what she created in terms of the trails through it, the wooded areas and the forest trail behind this Building.  In creating the playground, she created what is probably the best playground in the whole of Northern Ireland.  Obviously, it was done to meet the international standards that the European Union demands of children's playgrounds today.  The playground is locked up at a certain time each night.  Maybe, under certain circumstances, it has to be locked up each night.  I encourage as many children as possible to use it.  It has also the potential for organisational use, be it by groups of Scouts, Cubs, the Boys' Brigade or local schools.  It is a very safe environment, it is attractive, and it is well out of the way of all traffic.  In fact, it could not be safer.
I spoke earlier about the interest; people stopped me on the Estate and in the corridor and asked, "What do you mean by the 'use of the Stormont Estate?'".  I joked with them:  I said, "Well, we need to measure the number of dogs coming in and going out; they should all be chipped.  Only people with dogs that have been registered with the council should be allowed in".  Obviously, there has been some controversy about dog walking.  We created the feature referred to as the bullring for dogs to be exercised.
We have this jewel in the crown — this asset — sitting on our doorstep.  We need to compare it with the use of the Building and the super work being done on the tours and the educational facility.  We need to benchmark it against that internal work and see what we can do about bringing a greater interest to it.  Who would be interested?  I think that the general public would be interested.  I live in close proximity to the site and walk here during the summer months.  The number of foreign visitors you meet in these grounds is amazing.  Much of that is because there is an international hotel on the other side of the road.  In the summertime, at 6.00 pm, 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm, the grounds are still open, and visitors staying in the hotel walk the grounds.  You frequently get an opportunity to speak with them.  They are all extremely complimentary, but there is nothing that allows them to have a proper guided tour of the facility.  Since those are the circumstances, there is the potential for us to do more in that sense.
I have already referred to the wildlife, the trees, the flora and the fauna that is all there for the likes of youth groups, the Boys' Brigade or schoolchildren doing their academic qualifications.  It is also there just for children to be allowed formally to enjoy the site.  Many groups of children come to enjoy the site.
We know that there has been a history of large concerts on the site.  Initially, when Mo Mowlam started them, one in particular was so controversial that I got 300 letters of objection to it.  We moved away from that and learned a lesson, and subsequent concerts have not been controversial.  I am not talking about that kind of major event; I am talking about events that would not annoy the neighbours or bring any form of disruption to the area.  I am not talking about promoting large events; I am talking about small groups using the site.
I will finish with this, Mr Speaker:  the grounds are an asset.  They add to the work of the Assembly and the opening up of Parliament Buildings.  They allow for the promotion of the Assembly and, in many ways, goodwill and identification.  It may be — I only use the words "may be" — that the grounds have the potential to create a small number of jobs as well.  They certainly have the potential to add to our tourism and visitor offering, and they have the ability to add to the quality of life for those who live in the locale.
The site is a feature that, I believe, we are all rightly proud of.  I finish by paying tribute to the excellent work that is done by the grounds staff.  Let just me mention, Mr Speaker —

Mr Speaker: Very quickly.  You have gone over your time.

Robin Newton: I will be very quick.  I know that car parking has been a problem in the past.  That issue might need to be addressed in the future.

Andy Allen: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate.  I place on record my thanks and appreciation to all the staff, inside the Building and outside on the estate, who work tremendously hard in making sure that these facilities are in great shape.
In the years since the Good Friday Agreement and the coming of relative peace, this estate and the Building have seen many events, such as the Red Bull Crashed Ice event, which brought many spectators from across Northern Ireland.  It has also seen the Ulster centenary parade and the Brawl in the Hall event, when local boxing clubs, including an east Belfast boxing club, came into the Great Hall and put on a spectacular night of boxing.
Stormont estate is open to the public for recreation, walking and fitness trails, charitable events and use of the restaurant.  As has been mentioned, we have a state-of-the-art playground that has all the facilities that you would expect to see in a playground.  It has areas for parents to rest while watching their children, barbecue facilities and picnic tables.  It is enclosed, fenced in and has CCTV that is monitored by the control room.  The public can also avail themselves of tours of Parliament Buildings.  That is an opportunity to showcase the magnificent Building and to learn about its history.
I also place on record my delight that this great Building is being made more accessible for those with disabilities.  Indeed, we have seen more disabled car parking facilities at the east and west entrances since campaigning for me coming to the Assembly.  I am aware that a paper on other modifications to the Building is going in front of the Assembly Commission.  I welcome that.  We must work together to ensure that these marvellous facilities are fully accessible to all.  Promoting what is available and how to access it is key.

Chris Lyttle: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the use of the Stormont estate.  Parliament Buildings is iconic in Northern Ireland and internationally.  Indeed, the surrounding estate is beautifully managed and kept.  I, too, pay tribute to the staff in Parliament Buildings and on the Stormont estate for the hard work and excellence that they bring to this place.
The Stormont estate belongs to the public, and I believe that, as stewards of the Assembly, it is our responsibility to maximise the public benefit of it for everyone in our community.
Stormont estate has significant potential.  It has significant economic and tourism potential.  We have seen a number of world-class events associated with Stormont estate.  I think of the Giro d'Italia in 2014.  I remember lining the route of the competition.  What a world-class event that was hosted in the estate and what an atmosphere it generated not only here in Belfast but right across the community.  We had the Crashed Ice event and international concerts.  I think that, as other Members set out, whilst it is important that we seek to host events of that scale, it is also important that we keep paramount the concern for the amenity of the local community and residents in the surrounding area when delivering those events.
Stormont estate has huge civic potential.  There has been a wide range of charitable events on the estate.  I think of Runher and Run in the Dark, as well as a running event that I had the privilege to sponsor for Chest, Heart and Stroke and Strandtown Primary School.  I thank Principal McClenaghan for agreeing to run round with me in that particular event.  I think that he had to slow down significantly.  My running pace is not what it used to be.  There has also been the Strive for Five by the Square Wheels Cycle Club, which is based in Moy and undertakes an Atlantic-coast-to-Titanic-coast cycle that has finished at Stormont estate on a number of occasions and aims to raise awareness and funds for Diabetes UK.
Stormont estate also has significant community benefit potential through a wide range of events that encourage community and volunteering activity.  It was a privilege of mine to play a very small part in helping to establish parkrun on the Stormont estate.  I pay tribute to volunteers like Mel Boyle and the parkrun staff, who were able to establish an all-ability opportunity for people in the local community to engage in a 5 km run every Saturday morning here in Stormont estate.  Parkrun is a free weekly 5 km timed run that is open to everyone.  It is safe, easy and fun to take part in.  It has real health benefits.  It encourages volunteering and community cohesion.  I was glad to be joined by Máirtín Ó Muilleoir at the inaugural event in August last year.  It really is a great way to have fun, get healthy and meet new people.  I think it is only right that Stormont estate facilitates that type of event for our local community.
On 16 January last, there were 172 participants in the Stormont estate parkrun.  It is my understanding that, on New Year's Day, a new record for parkrun in Northern Ireland was set when there were over 500 runners participating in that particular event.  I commend the vision of the now retired, I believe, Stormont estate manager, Sam McCready, for the work that he did with the parkrun staff and volunteers to permit that type of event to take place and to showcase the potential of the Stormont estate.  I commend the new estate management team, which, I believe, is providing ongoing valuable assistance to ensure that the success of Stormont estate parkrun continues.  I understand that there are a few park runners on the estate management team.  I am grateful for the ongoing work in that regard.
There are many other assets to Stormont estate.  The Mo Mowlam children's playground has been mentioned.  I confess to making use of that playground regularly with my own children and to perhaps getting too involved and enjoying the facilities more than I should.  I also think of the reconciliation and reflection zone on Stormont estate.  I know that many church groups come to Stormont estate to reflect and pray for the health and well-being of the Government here and of our community.
I think also of the Pavilion facility, which is associated with the Northern Ireland Civil Service Sports Association, and of the PlayBall facility, which opens up Stormont estate for sporting potential for people across the community and which has hosted international world-class cricket match events.  It is my understanding that that organisation is in need of assistance from the Department of Finance and Personnel to ensure that that aspect of the Stormont estate is as accessible as possible to the public, particularly from the Upper Newtownards Road entrance.  Hopefully, the Minister can commit to work on that, given the good positive working relationship that the estate management team has contributed to a wide range of provision on the estate.
In conclusion, the Stormont estate has significant economic, tourist, community, health and sporting potential on a local, regional and international level.  My party and I are wholly committed to contributing everything that we can to realise that potential and to ensure that we maximise the public benefit of the estate for everyone in our community.

Sammy Douglas: I am pleased to participate in the debate tonight on the Stormont estate.  I thank my colleague Robin Newton for securing it.  I thank you, Mr Speaker, for attending.  I also thank the Minister.  I think that this is his first Adjournment debate, and I wish him well in his new role.
I was first elected four and a half years ago.  In the first couple of years, I hosted a number of community and voluntary groups and senior citizens groups at Stormont.  Very often, I asked how many of them had been to the Stormont estate and Building.  For most of them, it was their first opportunity to come here.  For many years, the estate, to be quite honest, was the preserve of the chosen few.  Thankfully, that is changing.  Over the past couple of years, a growing number of people have been coming into the estate.  As I say, it is sad that many of those people, quite a number of whom are from east Belfast, have never been into this Building or on the estate.  We need to look at how we encourage people to come along.
I commend the Events Office on the tours that it runs.  It does an excellent job, and I am sure that the Minister will confirm the growing numbers coming to the Building and associating with the estate.  While I understand the need to safeguard and preserve this wonderful Building and the majestic natural environment of woodland and parkland, I nonetheless believe that we should support well-managed events and encourage more visitors.  I make that point because, in one sense, as my colleague Chris Lyttle said, the estate belongs to the people.  We tend to forget that we are the custodians of the estate.  It does not belong to Members of the Assembly.  I sometimes host events up here and say to people, "It is great to see you here".  A lot of people say to me, "It is wonderful.  Thank you for inviting us up here".  I tell them that this place belongs to them; it belongs to the people.  Let us not forget that.
On a negative note, last summer, one of my constituents was getting married, and her father contacted me and asked whether she could use Stormont Castle as a backdrop for photographs.  To be quite honest, I came up against a brick wall.  It was impossible to get agreement from a range of sources just to get a couple up here in a car to take a few photographs for 10 or 15 minutes.  Eventually, I succeeded, and I pay tribute to Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, who helped to get an agreement all round.  I think that that was the first wedding at which a bride and bridegroom were able to get their photographs taken up here.  That is a shame.  Why are we blocking people from coming to take photographs for 10 minutes?  I understand about security and all that, but that family was willing to pay to come in.
Maybe the Minister will look to see whether we can be a bit more flexible when people want to use the castle for wedding photographs.
The reality is that many people, as was said, use this place.  Let me just quote a user.  I read this earlier today from someone who uses this Building.  It was not my colleague Robin Newton.  She said:
"I walk Stormont grounds at least three times a week and never get bored. The trees, squirrels and magpies are fantastic."
He never mentioned the magpies.
"The water lying under the trees at this time of year looks so beautiful and the kids love the play park.  Excellent sleighing when snow comes."
That is such a lovely quote.  I found another lovely quote on TripAdvisor from someone who has been to the estate:
"Had a wonderful tour before Christmas, and loved it!  The grounds are beautiful, and the views amazing.  Well worth a visit!"
Now, that is TripAdvisor telling the rest of the world, "Come to Stormont".  There is a great opportunity to add value through tourism.  We are promoting tourism right across Northern Ireland and beyond.
Let me quote just a few figures from the EastSide Arts Festival, a local initiative with many volunteers.  One of the events that I hosted here with the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was for 100 out-of-state visitors, people from all over the world, coming to east Belfast and Stormont.  The main speaker was from New Zealand.  Also part of the EastSide Arts Festival, I am sure we all remember the Live on Cyprus Avenue event with Van Morrison.  Using feedback from surveys and comment cards, the average stay in Northern Ireland for those attending the event — and many came from the Republic of Ireland, Great Britain and internationally — was 7·2 days per person.  Visitors came from 19 countries, so we had people from across the world coming up here.  I mention that because there is an opportunity for us to add value and link in to other tourist events and to promote tourism.
I think it was my colleague Robin Newton who said that visitors who come to the Stormont Hotel might want to go out and visit Titanic Belfast or go to the Giant's Causeway, which is a lovely part of the world.  It is good to do all those trips, but, if you are like me or from overseas, some days you just want to get out, go for a nice walk, clear your head and just sit and relax.  Nearly 10,000 visitors locally came to the EastSide Arts Festival, and many of them came here.  There were nearly 2,000 from the rest of Northern Ireland, and nearly 4,000 from Great Britain and overseas.  Let us see where we can explore opportunities to build on what we have already done here and encourage people to use this beautiful Building.
Some Members mentioned some of the events and activities that have taken place here, but nobody mentioned that wonderful day — and who could forget it? — on 27 June 2012, when 20,000 ticket holders converged on the estate to see Her Majesty the Queen in all her splendour.  The reason I get excited is that we have such a wonderful asset, but let us not hide our light under a bushel.
As I mentioned, a huge number of people have never had the pleasure of coming through those gates.  My dream would be to see the Northern Ireland football team this summer coming through those gates — and I am sure the Member opposite would like to see the Republic of Ireland football team coming through those gates — on an open-top bus driving up the Prince of Wales avenue with the European Championship.  What a dream come true.
Some people mentioned other events, but if we go back to 1998, who can forget Sir Elton John coming to Stormont?  I think it was well-managed.  There are difficulties about noise pollution with neighbours, and we have had discussions with neighbours over the years, including my colleague Robin Newton as one of our Stormont neighbours.  I would like to see similar events here in the future.  On the way out of the Chamber, my colleague Gordon Dunne said, "Don't forget to mention the Circuit of Ireland Rally, because it comes up here".  That was a great event.  I understand the problems with crowd control, but let us get those events well managed.  I am delighted that my colleague brought the topic to the House, and I support the Minister in some of the ideas that have been raised tonight.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Ba mhaith liom mo léamh féin a chur ar an scéal seo.  I take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his elevation.  I am told that, in the long negotiation about taking the job, he said that he wanted to be present for the Adjournment debate on the Stormont estate.  You have that glamour engagement tonight.

Mr Speaker: He had the Speaker's support as well.

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: I thank my colleague Robin Newton for introducing the topic, and I asked Sinn Féin whether I could speak on it, because I believe very strongly that Parliament Buildings and the estate are a great asset of our community.  They are a great treasure of the city of Belfast, and I echo the comments made by my friend and colleague Mr Douglas that we need to make maximum use of the estate.
Mr Speaker, I know that you do not follow Twitter, but, every morning when I come in, I take a picture of the estate.  There was a fog rolling in this morning, but I was glad to see that disappear during the day.  I like to see people in those pictures, and, for me, that is the test of whether this is a people's estate and a people's Building.  If I take a picture in the morning and there are no people about, my heart sinks, because, really, the test of our ability to throw the Building and the estate open is that there should be people around and being seen running, walking, walking their dogs and admiring the place.  As Mr Newton said, there should be tourists here.  I think that all of us want to see that maximised in the time ahead.  Sammy had to jump through a number of hoops to try to get a wedding picture at the castle.
I want to pay tribute to the generosity of the staff in this Building.  Of course, there are the wonderful ground staff that we have, who make the estate look magnificent, but there is also the generosity of the ushers who are here, the cafe staff, the tour staff, the education staff.  The grace and generosity with which they welcome people is truly tremendous, and they make it fun and enjoyable to visit the estate and the Building.
There are still a number of small restrictions.  You may not know, Mr Speaker, that, when they come into the Chamber, visitors are not allowed to sit in the Speaker's Chair.  Maybe in the time ahead someone will look at that.  I do not know whether you know that that is a rule.  At City Hall, that is the big thrill.  It is the big money that you get to sit —

Mr Speaker: For a long time, I was not allowed to sit in it.
[Laughter.]

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: The thrill of the City Hall is sitting in the Lord Mayor's chair, and, here, I ask the Minister, where we can say yes to people to increase use, we should do so.  There is always a reason to say no, but, if we can stretch ourselves to increase usage, that would be a victory for us.  Anything that increases ownership of the place and that makes people have a higher regard for Stormont and its representatives would be a good thing.
I have two final points.  We do not have any shelters at the bus stops, and I know that the Minister will get that sorted.  There are four bus stops and no shelters, and we are trying to encourage people to access Parliament Buildings and the estate without having to use a car.

Sammy Douglas: Will the Member give way?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: Of course I will.

Sammy Douglas: The Member has made some very good points.  Sustrans is now looking at having a bicycle hub here, not just for tourists but for Members.  Will the Member agree that that would be an excellent idea?

Máirtín Ó Muilleoir: That would be first class.  Anything that Sustrans is involved in, you can sign me up for.
I wanted to make that point about bus stops, and I want to make the point about disability access.  Mr Andy Allen has pointed out how poor disability access was, and it was not his job to get it sorted out.  In fact, it is an indictment on us that it was not sorted for him and for other wheelchair users.  It is absolutely imperative that we measure up and shape up and that we make sure that, if you are a wheelchair user, you have exactly the same access as anyone else in this Building.  I hope that that will happen in the time ahead.
Mr Lyttle mentioned the parkrun.  I know that his medical team are a bit worried about a man of his advanced years taking part in the parkrun, but I was glad, and it was a victory for modern science, that he was able to finish the parkrun.  An interesting point about the Saturday morning parkrun is that the biggest ever parkrun was on New Year's Day, as you said.  There were 500 little tags, and 514 people took park.  That shows that, when we allow people to take ownership of this Building and the estate, they will do so.  I wish them well in the time ahead.
Finally, in West Belfast, we have a famous flâneur, tour guide and walker — Tom Hartley.   I see in Robin Newton the Tom Hartley of the Stormont estate.  I would go on a walk with him to see all the different icons of Stormont that he mentioned, plus the GAA tree, of course.  A little birdie tells me that Mr Newton been selected again, so I presume that he will return in May.  I think that there may be a future for him — I do not know whether he will be in your Chair, Mr Speaker, after the break — moonlighting as a tour guide for the Stormont estate.

Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Mervyn Storey, who sat through all of that.

Mervyn Storey: Thank you, Mr Speaker.  I have to say that I have enjoyed the opportunity to come and listen to the Members who contributed.  I want to return to a few things that were raised during the debate.
This is only a preliminary comment:  we need to draw a distinction between the Commission, which is responsible for this Building, and my Department, which is responsible for the estate that lies beyond the railings.  Sometimes, those barriers can become an impediment, so we may need to look at that.   There are priorities that have to come to the Commission, and it, therefore, has its own responsibilities.  I will work my way through the comments that I want to make and then come back to comments made during the debate.
First, I thank the Member for initiating the debate and commend him for securing it for this evening.  I am grateful to my friend and colleague Robin for seeking to ensure that the marvellous facility that is the Stormont estate is used to the maximum benefit of the community, although I think that he should have declared an interest because he does not live too far from it.  Either we are in his back garden or he is in ours — I am not sure which.
I particularly welcome the opportunity that the debate affords us to take Members' views on how we might move forward with the use of the estate, and I think that we will have something positive to say about that.
Stormont estate could be described as a mixture of country park and working area.  As we hold this debate and take forward the business of government, along with in the region of 2,500 civil servants, we are surrounded by iconic and historic buildings, all of which are sited in the most beautiful and majestic natural environment, as mentioned by most contributors.
The original land for the estate was purchased in 1921 for the princely sum of £20,344, and the estate grew continuously up to the 1960s to what we see today.  If you go on to the Executive's website, you will find out about the interesting history of Stormont Castle and Rev John Cleland.  Just to prove that my preparation for the debate went beyond the work of my officials, I can tell you that you will find information on two websites — that is an issue that we will have to look at — the Stormont Assembly website, which is under the jurisdiction of the Commission, and the Northern Ireland Executive website.  The Assembly website is very good and gives pictures and additional information, and I commend those responsible for it for the work that they have done.
As well as the Assembly Building, we have Stormont Castle, buildings of various lineage, over 400 acres of land — grassland and woodland — and a formal processional avenue.  The double rows of red-twigged limes that flank Prince of Wales Avenue are the originally planted trees and are over 80 years old.  In fact, some of the original forested areas, dating back to 1830, are still in existence.  The estate has acquired Green Flag status, and careful management means that our wooded grounds are fast becoming an important educational site.  Our whole estate is, as was referred to, an important tourism and heritage site.  I hope that I sound proud of the estate because I think that we all have a right to be proud of what we have.
Sometimes I think we become accustomed.  It is interesting to hear the comments of the Member for South Belfast about taking a picture of it every day.  We come here and can easily forget the pleasure and privilege that is ours to come to what is a very iconic building, which is also set in the most stunning of surroundings.  I am convinced that none of us would wish to consider anything that would have significant and ongoing impacts on the estate.  That means that we need to ensure that whatever events occur or work is carried out on the estate is done in a way that is caring and is reflective of our commitment to the environment and to ensuring that we enhance it, rather than create any difficulties.
We have to reflect the fact that the estate is open 365 days a year.  The traffic arrangements and the comings and goings throughout the average day actually equate to those in one of our small towns.  We run a myriad of events every year — some 37 events per year — from the smallest Boy Scouts charity run to the major international events like the Giro and the Crashed Ice event, which all bring their own particular complications and challenges.  We have already referred to some of that.  I think Robin raised the particular issue in relation to what more could be done in terms of the promotion with children and youth organisations.  I am more than happy to task my estate team with considering how we can promote the use of the estate amongst youth organisations.
One of the issues that we may also need to raise with the Commission here, and with the department that is responsible for the tours is that, while the tours in this Building are primarily in relation to this Building, I think that a lot of people come and go away but do not actually have a full understanding of what is still available.  To that end, some work has been done to produce a leaflet.  Even during the course of this debate some other things have come to mind that we might want to amend the leaflet and add to it.  After the debate we will take cognisance of what more we can put in it.  That will be produced shortly, so it will available for people as a point of reference.  It will also be online, which is helpful for those people who are more amenable to using modern technology.  I have to say that I always feel safe when I have a piece of paper in my hand, rather than an iPad or a computer.  I am quite happy to pursue that issue on behalf of the Member.  Maybe the first step is to also liaise with the education department in the Assembly and have a discussion with it around that issue.
We also have to be cognisant of the fact that people who live around and nearby the estate have raised concerns in the past.  Our neighbours are an important consideration, and I am particularly keen to ensure that we keep to a minimum any impacts on or disruption to their lives, both from the day-to-day operation of the estate and from any events that we hold.  With bigger events, we know that, for example, we have finite parking facilities, and they are often fully utilised.  It is an issue that gives us considerable concern as to how we will provide additional car parking in the future.  There are issues that we have to take into consideration as the estate has developed over the last number of years, particularly since the bringing back of devolution and the opening up of the estate.  We also want to be sensitive to the need to ensure that noise levels are kept to a minimum.  We want to, for example, ensure that events are held within restricted time periods to ensure that our neighbours are not disturbed.  When appropriate to events, we will therefore work closely with all other agencies that might have a responsibility or an interest in the aspects of the safe traffic management of the surrounding area, such as Transport NI and the police.
That brings me to the issue that was raised by the Member for South Belfast in relation to bus shelters and the issue of Sustrans.  I will have my management team take a look at that particular issue.
There is also an issue around the number of buses.  Sometimes, I use public transport to come from north Antrim to the House, and the train service is outstanding.  I appreciate it and enjoy using it.  The difficulty comes when you have to get a connection.  I may be wrong, and I trust that I am not placing something on the record that is totally inaccurate but, from memory, I think that only two buses access the estate.  That can become a particular challenge, and we may need to have a conversation with the Minister for transport on that.
It is also worth mentioning that two other organisations occupy part of the estate; the Assembly Commission, which I referred to, and the Northern Ireland Civil Service Sports Association.  That issue was raised by my colleague Mr Lyttle, and the estate management team met the Pavilion management on the issue of access and will continue to work with them to seek a resolution that is acceptable to all.  I am quite happy to keep the Member informed as to any other issues that come from that.
My officials will continue to liaise with those organisations to ensure that events do not clash and that areas of the estate for which my Department has responsibility are available as appropriate.  I will take the comments made by my colleague Mr Douglas on board around the difficulties someone had getting wedding photographs taken.  I have a wedding this year in my own home.  I want to reassure you that it is not my own; I did that 28 years ago.  I better not say any more or I will get into trouble, but I have a daughter getting married later this year, and I appreciate that, for those involved in that very special day, coming up against difficulties like that is an added pressure.  I will ask my officials to look at that to see if we can have a more streamlined, open approach, and we will come back to the Member.

Chris Lyttle: I thank the Minister for giving way.  I extend sincere thanks for his attendance at the debate this evening.  I echo the calls for a first-class cycle storage facility on the estate.  Another issue raised with me was to request the presence of a defibrillator, given the extent of the events that are going on in the estate now, if, indeed, that does not already exist.  I just want to put that on the record.  Thank you again, Minister.

Mervyn Storey: I thank the Member for that.  I will give an assurance that we will look at those additional issues.  Having taken cognisance of all the comments that have been made, we will write to the Members present and give you an update on the issues that we will undertake following on from the debate.
In conclusion, we have to take historical, environmental and practical concerns into consideration in any discussion about using the estate, but, generally, if an event can be approved, it will be.  Every event is facilitated as well as it possibly can be.  I want to place my appreciation on record.  When I came into office, I was made aware that we would have this Adjournment debate tonight, and I want to place on record the immense work carried out by the rangers and estate staff, and also include those in relation to the Commission here and those who look after this Building.  We are well served by dedicated and professional staff who give a very good impression of the estate and the Building when visitors come, and I trust that we, collectively, can continue to ensure that Stormont estate and the Stormont buildings are the jewel in the crown in relation to our tourism product and the history of Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker: Thank you all very much.  That was a very interesting debate.
Adjourned at 8.04 pm.